The Politic - Winter 2012

POLITIC THE

A YALE UNDERGRADUATE JOURNAL OF POLITICS

Winter 2012

Volume LXV

Behind the

Wall of Corruption

What’s Inside Chinese Challenges to Growth

China has long desired to be at the center of modern civilization, and that goal appears to be closer than ever to fruition. But China faces declining population growth, outdated labor laws and international pressures surrounding the Renminbi, all of which threaten its economic solvency. Indeed, Chinese growth and production, as well as the standard of life among the country’s citizens, will stagnate or even decline unless major reforms are made. Learn more on page 48.

Showdown in the Arctic Nations circling the Arctic are rushing to validate their claims in the High North. Fears of a reemergence of the Cold War in the frigid Far North are rising. However, a NATO vs. Russia security paradigm is unlikely to emerge immediately in the Arctic. Instead, a multilateral relation including non-circumpolar nations is more likely to emerge. Learn more on page 33.

The Future of IRAQ In war and in history, images matter, as an image can provide an enduring symbol that can encapsulate the legacy of a war in single shot. But which images will accompany the history of the Iraq War? Perhaps the one that provides the most apt symbol for the war is the toppling of the state of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square, an image with a great deal of layers and complexity. Learn more on pages 12 and 14.

Table of Contents

Politic the

Winter 2012 - Volume LXV

INTERNATIONAL

FEATURES Confronting Corruption in the Developing World

By Josef Goodman, Molly Ma, and Jay Pabarue

The Arctic: A NATO-Russia Showdown?

33

Will South Sudan Survive?

37

3

Activism and Optimism: The Syrian Uprising

38

6

A Faltering Experiment

42

The UK and the EU: A Breaking of Unions

43

Cyberwar: The Fifth Domain of Warfare

44

World Population Hits 7 Billion

47

China’s Unsustainable Growth

48

Ciao, Ciao: The Rise and Fall of Berlusconi

50

Who Will Save Bosnia From Itself?

51

27

NATIONAL A Republican Reformer for President?

An Interview with Buddy Roemer Conducted by Eric Stern

A Pacific Railroad Act for the 21st Century What the Civil War Can Teach Congress Today about the Benefits of Big Government

By Josef Goodman

Immigration Nation

The Legacy and Future of Migrants in America

By Zoe Mercer-Golden

By Meredith Potter

8 11

A Symbolic Victory in Iraq

12

In the Shadow of the Crescent

14 16

Mississippi’s Red Herring

19

An Interview with Professor Donald Kagan Conducted by Shaun Tan

The Super PAC Election

21

American Interventionism and the Tragedy of Foreign Policy

25

By Eric Stern

By Alex Fisher

Why China should adopt the Western liberal paradigm of societal success

By Paavan Gami

By Seoyoon Han

The Peloponessian War and American Democracy

Why Pro-Life Momentum Won’t Stop with Initiative 26

By Marissa Medansky

By Shivani Vohra

By Austin Schaefer

By Jason Parisi

The Iraqi Pursuit of a National Identity

By Justin Schuster

An Interview with Karam Nachar Conducted by Justin Schuster

By Donna Horning

US Energy Policy and the Power of Lobbying

Iconic Imagery and the Legacy of the Iraq War

By Noah Remnick

By Sun Woo Ryoo

By Vinicius G. Lindoso

Pictures from CreativeCommons used under Attribution Noncommercial license. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

By Noah Remnick

Winter 2012

1

From the Editors

Politic the

A Yale Undergraduate Journal of Politics

Editor-in-Chiefs Byron Edwards Jacob Effron

Managing Editor Josef Goodman

National Editors Charles Gyer Will Jordan

International Editors Donna Horning Meredith Potter

Features Editor Sibjeet Mahapatra

Directors of Online Relations Sun Woo Ryoo Eric Stern

Directors of Development Eli Rivkin Justin Schuster

Director of Public Relation Noah Remnick

Staff Writers

Alex Fisher, Paavan Gami, Seoyoon Han, Vinicius G. Lindoso, Molly Ma, Marissa Medansky, Zoe Mercer-Golden, Jay Pabarue, Jason Parisi, Kishen Patel, Austin Schaefer, Shaun Tan, Shivani Vohra

Development

JinDesign Gon Park, director Cover

by Anjali Jotwani Xiaochen Su

Board of Advisors John Lewis Gaddis

Robert A. Lovett Professor of Military & Naval History, Yale University

David Gergen

Editor-at-Large, U.S. News & World Report

Anthony Kronman

Former Dean, Yale Law School

Ian Shapiro

Director, Yale Center for International and Area Studies

For information regarding submissions, advertisements, subscriptions, contributions, or to provide feedback, please contact us at politicatyale@gmail. com or write us at

The Politic

P.O. Box 201452 New Haven, CT 06520-1452 Disclaimer: This magazine is published by Yale College students, and Yale University is not responsible for its contents. The opinions expressed by the contributors to The Politic do not necessarily reflect those of its staff or advertisers.

2

THE POLITIC

Dear Reader,

Winter 2012

In December 1911, the Titanic was five months from sinking. Few had heard of the Belgium town of Ypres or the River Somme. No one could have predicted the murder of Czar Nicolas II or the exile of his cousin Kaiser Wilhelm II. In 1911, Adolf Hitler was a failed artist, unemployed, and wandering the streets of Munich.

A century later, at the closing of 2011, the future is as uncertain and obscure as ever.

The European Union is on the brink of collapse. The Italian premier is no more. The bloodbath in Syria continues. The world is now the home of one more nation and seven billion people. And after eight years, the United States is withdrawing its army from Iraq.

Will the EU collapse? Will Silvio Berlusconi return? What lays in the future for South Sudan, the world’s newest nation? Can the tenuous situation in Iraq hold? This issue of The Politic brings insight and clarity to the biggest headlines of the year to better inform the reader of the realities of today and the possibilities of tomorrow.

The Politic also weighs in on the stories that have fallen through the cracks. We sit down with Governor Buddy Roemer, the unknown Republican presidential hopeful.

We probe conflict in cyberspace, potential disunion between the UK and the EU, and the showdown in the Arctic between NATO and Russia. The Politic explores the future of migrant workers in America and the pro-life movement after the failure of Initiative 26 at the polling booths in Mississippi Readers will find in our pages pieces that predict but also those that reflect. We ask ourselves what democracy in Ancient Athens and the politicians of the Civil War can teach us about government today. We look to lessons of American interventionism abroad to guide us in our future engagements.

In our Feature piece, we dedicate six pages to examine corruption in the developing worlds of the BRICs.The future of these countries, more than anything, will determine what the world looks like in 2111.

Thank you for reading. We hope you enjoy this issue.

Byron Edwards and Jacob Effron

National

A Republican Reformer for President?

An Interview with Buddy Roemer Conducted by Eric Stern Charles “Buddy” Roemer III served as the 52nd Governor of Louisiana, from 1988 to 1992.

Originally elected as a Democrat, Roemer switched to the Republican Party in 1991. He was a member of the US House of Representatives from 1981 to 1988 and is currently President and CEO of Business First Bank in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. On July 21, 2011, Roemer announced his candidacy for President at Dartmouth College. Widely considered to be a long shot for the Republican nomination, Roemer has been excluded from all Presidential debates and is struggling in national polls. Nonetheless, Roemer is actively campaigning. He is notable for his full-throated embrace of the Occupy Wall Street movement and commitment to campaign finance reform.

The Politic: Governor Roemer, thank you very much for agreeing to speak with me. I first wanted to ask why you switched parties partway through your term as Governor of Louisiana.

BR: I did that twenty years ago. I had become pretty well distressed with the Democratic Party over a number of years.

I’m a conservative on economic issues particularly, and the Democratic Party became such the government party that I became more and more uncomfortable and I began to vote more and more often for Republican nominees for President, not Democratic. And I thought honesty required an honest assessment of where I was in my Party. On a second issue, Louisiana was a one-party state. You know, if you were born in the South in the 1940s and 50s, you were born a Democrat.

All the things that I fought — corruption, [the] good-ole-boy network, crony capitalism, accepting second best — all these were a direct result of single-party dominance. There was no spirited debate. I was the second Republican Governor in the two hundred year history of Louisiana, and there have been two more elected since me. Today, there’s a lot of debate, the state is much cleaner, and I feel good about that. And I’m not saying I take credit for that, but I am saying that I helped establish a second party in Louisiana.

The Politic: Why are you running for President?

BR: I caught an odor from Wall Street and Washington, D.C. that I didn’t like. And it was the odor of special favor[s]. It was the odor of injustice. It was the odor of opportunity lost. It was the odor of corruption. And I said in my announcement that I think the best way to move America forward — is to have a President free to lead, to insist on fair trade with China, not unfair trade; to completely throw out the tax code and put in a flat tax with no exemptions; to balance the budget over five years; to deregulate small business; and to have America

be energy-independent using natural gas. This election [will determine whether] we get a good person or we just settle for the average crook. I say I won’t settle for that. I’m Steve Jobs in this campaign. His first rule was demand excellence. I demand excellence. I want someone who owes his allegiance to the American people, not his party, not his class … but to his nation. And that’s why I am running. I don’t know if I can win. Most of my life I’ve won my elections, but I haven’t won them all. I can be whipped. Money can overwhelm me.

Ignorance can defeat me. A better candidate can beat me.

Those things happen. But in this campaign, at this time, in this country, I don’t see anybody standing for reform.

The Politic: Do you believe you can change the country’s campaign finance laws if you are elected?

BR: Absolutely. Victory is a powerful thing. Oh, in Louisiana, they laughed. But the first act [we passed] was campaign disclosure and it’s still on the books — strongest in America. [There is] full disclosure, broad limits, no big checks, no using money to buy votes, no hauling voters to the polls. My God, that was a Southern tradition. We changed it. [When] I stand before Congress on the first day [of my Presidency], it will be so quiet you can hear a pin drop and we will have a fair, straightforward proposition — Constitutional — that will require 48 hours for reporting contributions. Not 100 days; 48 hours in the twentyfirst century. It will not allow a lobbyist to be registered as a lobbyist and give money to politicians. You can choose; it’s a free country. Be a lobbyist, or be a fundraiser — you can’t be both. We will have criminal penalties for violations. We will reduce PAC contributions to that of individuals. We will be specific, and we will have Congress, as their first order of business, prepare Washington for victory in the jobs creation business. And the way we do that is to get the special interest money out of the capital.

Winter 2012

3

National

BR: I do. I believe it’s possible, that’s what I believe. This race is wide open. Republicans are having the same problem that this country is having. We are a nation in trouble. We need a President free to lead and it’s damn hard to find one!

The Politic: Do you believe the other Republican candidates will be able to defeat President Obama in 2012?

In July 2011, Roemer announced that he would be seeking the 2012 presidential nomination of the Republican Party. Above, Roemer delivers a speech at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The Politic: You have been excluded from all of the Republican Presidential debates so far. What is your opinion of the decisions to exclude you?

BR: Well, I’m unhappy about it. I don’t understand it. I don’t know how we pick a President anymore. Is it from the famous?

Is it from the wealthy? [The] famous and wealthy shouldn’t be excluded, but that shouldn’t be the single criterion that we use to say who’s in the national debate. You shouldn’t have to have your own TV show. You shouldn’t have to be endorsed

by Fox News. But my numbers are slowly improving. I started out at zero — I hadn’t been in public office in twenty years.

Then I went to one percent, and then last week I went to two percent. I was ahead in the Florida poll of Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Gary [Johnson]. And they have made two or more debates. I have made zero. I’m beginning to think they’re excluding me for another reason. Could it be that I point my finger at the whole system and say it’s corrupt? Could it be that I’m the only candidate that went to Occupy Wall Street and listened for a day? Could it be that I’m the only guy that’s been a Congressman and a Governor and I know the system cold? I don’t know.

The Politic: Do you believe that you will be the Republican nominee for President?

4

THE POLITIC

BR: Oh I do. I think that the election is wide open; no question about it. I mean, I think [Barack Obama’s] Presidency is a failed one. Let’s take his major policy: a stimulus to get this country started again. He already spent more money on that than on everything else put together. Well it won’t work. When [people] spend [the stimulus] money, what do they spend it on? Products made in China. There’s nothing made in America. We have lowered the unemployment rate in China, not in America. At the height of the recession, Chinese unemployment was 47 million [people]. Today, it’s 15 million [people]. America has not gotten any better and China has improved its position 70 percent. I’m an economist; I look at the numbers. Obama knows nothing about job creation. He’s doing it the wrong way. Do I like the man? Yes. I thought he ran a terrific campaign, but there’s been no change. He gets more money from small givers than the other guys do, but he gets far more money from Wall Street. … I wish he’d been in business. I wish he hadn’t been another Harvard lawyer. He might understand how the world works.

The Politic: What would you do if you were elected President instead?

BR: Look, I expect to change American politics. I expect to do it like I did it in Louisiana. It won’t be popular. It won’t always be easy, but — by God — it’s what I do. I throw the money-changers out. I let plain people with brains come in.

Tim Geithner and Goldman Sachs will no longer be [the] Secretary of Treasury. We will have a knowledgeable banker from Main Street, not Wall Street. We will have a foreign policy that won’t have addiction to oil in the room. We will quit sending Marines on oil duty. We will turn this country around, and we will have the biggest economic boom that your parents have seen since World War II. We will have a level playing field on trade. We will unleash the power of small business. We will drill cleanly for energy independence. We will put America to work again. I have two degrees from Harvard — not as good as Yale, but it’s a decent school. I have a degree in economics and a master’s degree from the Harvard Business School. I know banking. I know start-ups. I know innovation. I know how to grow jobs. I’m the only man running who’s been elected to Congress and elected to Governor and has prepared himself all of his life to lead. And [I’m] free to do so.

National

The Politic: Where do you predict the United States will be ten years from now?

BR: Well, it depends who we have as our leader. Chances are we will still be sliding. Nothing’s made in America anymore.

41 percent of our military equipment is made in Taiwan or Japan or China or Malaysia. For God’s sake! We haven’t created any new jobs in thirteen years. We have a million and a half fewer workers than we had thirteen years ago. There are 43 million more Americans and we have a million and a half fewer jobs. Where will we be ten years from now? That’s the best question anybody’s asked me in this campaign. We know we’re in trouble today. Ten years from now, we could be in greater trouble. There’s an old rock-and-roll song called, “Slip Sliding Away.” That’s where we are.

The Politic: Do you believe the slide can be stopped?

BR: I believe in our country. I believe there’s not a single problem that can’t be addressed. The undisciplined budgets,

“I caught an odor from Wall Street and Washington, D.C. that I didn’t like. And it was the odor of special favor[s]. It was the odor of injustice.” –Buddy Roemer. Above, demonstrators protest corruption in Washington.

a tax code written by the lobbyists, an immigration policy that doesn’t exist, foreign aid cash rather than the real gift of teaching — I could go on and on. There’s not a problem we can’t solve, and ten years from now, we could be a clear number 1, and pulling ahead. [If you had talked to] Steve Jobs before he died, he’d tell you he had no PACs in his company, the most valued company in America. No lobbyists, no PACs; [he just] took care of his business. He demanded excellence. We can do it, but we will not do it with these Republican and Democratic Presidential wannabes. They are not free. They are not focused. They are not gifted. They are not committed to the American people. You know what they are committed to?

They all just want to get reelected. I challenge them.

The Politic: During your Presidential campaign, you openly embraced the Occupy Wall Street movement — even briefly joining the protestors — unlike the other Republican Presidential candidates. Do you believe the movement embodies conservative principles?

BR: It does: the most conservative principle. The most conservative principle is to clean up corruption. Ask Rudy Giuliani.

Ask any character in history who came to the capital and cleaned out the rogues. I went to Occupy Wall Street because I’m 68. I’m the Granddad in this race. And I have a memory.

I grew up in the Deep South on a small farm where a cross was burned in my Daddy’s yard, because my Daddy stood up in a Methodist Church and said black people are Americans too.

[He said] they’re individuals and [the] Church should stand with their civil liberties. He had a cross burned on his yard, but he told me the lesson. He said, “Buddy, listen to young people.

They’re not shackled with convention. They’re free and they’re telling us the country’s not fair. Listen.” I remember being at Harvard in the ‘60s when students marched against the Vietnam War. And the old guard laughed at them, shot guns at them — I mean pellets, bullets, tear gas. And [they] said, “What do these kids know? They’re freshmen at Yale. What do they know? They’re freshmen at Harvard. They’re freshmen at LSU. They don’t know anything.” Well they stopped the war. I went to Occupy Wall Street because for the first time in years, young people began to come together and say, “We smell something. There’s the smell of corruption.” Now maybe they should be in Washington — I’m not gonna argue that. … But I challenge Herman Cain, who called them unAmerican and unpatriotic. I challenge him to get his memory right about what changed America. It was young people. And Occupy Wall Street — I guarantee — is changing America. It will be a [fairer], more just place. And the bailout bankers on Wall Street will have a reckoning. I can’t wait.

Eric Stern is a freshman in Pierson College.

Winter 2012

5

National

A Pacific Railroad Act for the 21st Century What the Civil War Can Teach Congress Today about the Benefits of Big Government

By Josef Goodman

B

y its legislation to finance the war, emancipate the slave, and invest public land in future growth,” wrote Civil War historian James McPherson, “the 37th Congress did more than any other in history to change the course of national life.” The legislation conceived from 1861 – 1863 was of vast scope and great variety. Within months of Fort Sumner, the Union Congress had acted swiftly to put the country on firm financial footing by introducing the first federal income tax in American history. Over the course of the war, Congress passed the National Banking Act, the Legal Tender Act, and the Internal Revenue Act to maneuver the dire fiscal straits of a war strained nation. Looking beyond the immediacy of the conflict and into the future, the 37th Congress added the Homestead Act, the Morill Act, and the Pacific Railroad Act to the statute books, laying the foundation for half a century of post-war growth.

Political flexibility and foresight were painfully lacking in the Confederacy. The South, incapable of concentrating political power in Richmond, manifested a deficient political response to the realities of total war. Highly disastrous legislation such as the Conscription Act, gubernatorial subordination, and a mismanagement of finances all hamstrung the rebellion.

In the face of annihilation, the Confederacy’s political class demonstrated a reoccurring reluctance to ruffle the feathers of a peacetime philosophy that favored small government. The Confederacy may have produced better generals. The Union, however, produced better politicians.

The 112th Session of Congress that occupies the Capitol today can learn much from the Union politicians who scurried those halls during the Civil War years. The United States today finds itself entangled in three wars, bankrupt with broken schools and broken roads. The recession is over, yet millions remain unemployed and no better off. The government has done little, meanwhile, to invest in industries of the future.

Where is the Pacific Railroad Act for 21st century industry and infrastructure? Where is the Morill Act to revamp the country’s education system? The Frank-Dodd Law, with barely a few dozen provisions written or implemented, pales in comparison to the Congressional financial handlings of 160 years ago. The obstacles facing America today demand a strong, smart government. The Congressional class of 1863 with its stellar legislative record proved the success of an active government of Hamiltonian design and the triumph of the public – private sector partnership. The Confederacy, on the other hand, had sacrificed the bold government of Hamilton for the limited government of Jefferson, placing her bet on

“

6

THE POLITIC

the wrong Founding Father. Washington would be wise today not to make that same mistake.

Policymakers shoud choose the Founding vision that won the Civil War. Of course, Republicans and Tea Party activists are anathema to government flexing its muscles. Forever committed to the “government is the problem” mantra, the right points to the Solyndra bankruptcy as the most recent example of government incompetence. A $528 million gamble with taxpayer dollars on a company that produced panels for $7 and sold them for $3 was a rather unwise venture for sure. The irony! The federal government, by investing in solar panels, was punished for its hubris like the mythological Icarus. This incident, the GOP gleans, goes to show that one should not fly too close to

National

the sun and that “that government is best which governs least.”

Yet, Solyndra-gate neither dispels the necessity nor profitability of alternative energy nor the role government can play in the development of this next market revolution. According to Garvin Jabusch, chief investment officer at Green Alpha Advisers, which focuses on environmentally sustainable investments, the Solyndra bankruptcy is not symptomatic of the solar industry at large. Quite the reverse is true. The solar market nearly doubled from 2009 to 2010 and is anticipated to add about 24,000 jobs, a 26 percent increase, over the next year, reported the Solar Energy Industries Association. The laws of capitalism dictate that some companies die and others thrive. Solyndra was one company’s failure and not the failure of an industry.

Nor has the Solyndra mess succeeded in showing the federal government’s green energy push a flop. The loan defaults of Solyndra and Beacon Power, a battery company in upstate New York that borrowed $39 million, represent a mere 1.3% of the $37.6 billion dispensed thus far to green technologies.

Turning a molehill into a mountain belies the fact that the federal government is actually quite a good investor, not that the bankers on Wall Street have provided much competition in recent years. Remember Obama’s $50 billion bet on General Motors? The car manufacturer has posted its first annual profits in over 6 years and emerged from its Chapter XI bankruptcy with a $20 billion IPO, the largest in US history. Most importantly, hundreds of thousands of workers still have their jobs.

Remember TARP, the $700 billion government gamble? It paid off, saving the financial sector and preventing an out all depression.

Some may try to scare Americans of big government choosing market winners and losers. In their hate of government, they resort to some hazy arguments. Columnist Charles Hurt in a recent article in the Washington Times explained how the federal government, in its infinite wisdom, chose the blackberry, slow and halting, over the iPhone, brilliant and sleek, as the standard operating devise. Hurt forgot that half of America chose the tracking ball over the touch screen. He also must not have heard that United States federal agencies are ditching BlackBerry devices in favor of those powered by iOS.

To return to the Civil War era when Congress had to reckon with a Solyndra of its own. The Credit Mobilier scandal of 1872 shed light on the fraudulent transactions between the Union Pacific Railroad and the financial institution, Credit Mobilier of America, in the construction of the first transcontinental railroad. The scandal’s origins date back to the Lincoln presidency with the formation of the Credit Mobilier in 1864 and would forever tarnish the Grant administration and the former general’s presidential legacy. The ongoing investigation into the failure of Solyndra is unlikely to uncover duplicity to rival the 1872 scandal with the bribing of a congressman.

But what if, in the aftermath of this wrongdoing, the federal government had withdrawn completely from the development and building of railroads, as Republicans call for Obama to do with green energy today? The Pacific Railroad Act of 1862 that issued government bonds and grants of land to railroad companies changed the landscape of the American economy.

Railroads opened up remote regions, cut the cost of passenger travel and freight transportation, and sparked development and innovation in steel, construction, oil, and finance industries.

Who today would have heard of the Robber Barons had it not been for the federal government’s role in the development of the transcontinental railroads? The Pacific Railroad Act laid the foundations for a 19th century infrastructure and 20th century American economic dominance.

The task that lies before Congress today is to duplicate these past efforts for the 21st century. History has vindicated big government and the benefits it can deliver. The 37th Ses-

“The Confederacy...had sacrificed the bold government of Hamilton for the limited government of Jefferson, placing her bet on the wrong Founding Father. Washington would be wise today not to make that same mistake.” sion of Congress is a testament to this liberal vision, and so are more recent figures like New Deal official Harry Hopkins, who in two months found jobs for 4 million people. His performance as head of the Civil Works Administration and the Works Program Administration makes the Roosevelt confidant – “bleeding-heart, government-loving, unelected superbureaucrat Harry Hopkins” - arguably the greatest job creator in American history. These historical examples demonstrate, not evidence of a national courtship with communism, but the success of government and free market coordination. As the 21st century unfolds and the necessity for green energy becomes more apparent, America and her politicians must dispense with the fairy dust and magic wand of the libertarian. Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction. The history book tells a different story.

Josef Goodman is a sophomore in Morse College.

Winter 2012

7

National

Immigration Nation The Legacy and Future of Migrants in America

By Zoe Mercer-Golden

T

he cliché that every American is an immigrant exists for a reason: the vast majority of Americans are of foreign descent, with many able to trace their lineage to individuals a few generations removed who immigrated to the United States from the mid 19th century to the early 20th century.

Contentious from the moment of its inception as a federal responsibility, America’s immigration policy through the decades has been and remains the product of a complex interplay of political, cultural and economic motivations.

The establishment of the Immigration Service in 1891 proved a seminal moment in the history of American immigration, providing the first federal mechanism for monitoring and controlling the arrival of immigrants on U.S. soil. Despite a dip in immigration levels during World War I, the levels of immigration remained high into the 1920s – until the passage of the Quota Laws, created and revised between 1921-4, which instituted caps on the numbers of immigrants coming from individual countries.

The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 did away with the national-origins quota system in favor of a categorical preference system in which individuals with labor skills were preferred over those without specific skill sets, though regional quotas still existed for immigrants arriving from certain areas. In the 1970s, immigration caps were revised in favor of one total limit on the number of immigrants accepted into the United States. The ceiling on the number of immigrants accepted has risen from under 300,000 individuals a year three decades ago to the current “flexible” cap, instituted in 1990, of 675,000 immigrants.

Today, there are four major groups of individuals granted visas for permanent or semi-permanent entry into the United States. The first category is immediate relatives of US citizens, who are also connected to the second category, family-sponsored preference admission. The third category of admission, employment-based preference admission, is a continuation of earlier policies of preference towards skilled workers. A final category entails asylum seekers, refugees, and diversity candidates, individuals from countries with historically low rates of admission to the United States.

Unauthorized immigration to the United States remains the most contentious aspect of immigration policy. The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act attempted to enhance enforcement and provide new pathways to amnesty through the creation of two programs – the Seasonal Agricultural Worker program, which allowed workers who resided in the United States for 90 or more days to apply for permanent 8

THE POLITIC

resident status, and the Legally Authorized Worker program, which allows unauthorized immigrants living in the United States since 1982 to legalize their status.

Recent legislation has increased border enforcement and reduced the government benefits available to immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security took over most of the responsibilities of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 2002, dividing the responsibilities of the INS amongst three bureaus at the Department: the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Congressional Budget Office Reports on the Status of Immigrants in the United States The Congressional Budget Office has, over the last ten years, released two major reports on the status of immigrants within the United States, one in 2006 and the other in 2011. These reports paint a compelling picture of the challenging financial and social circumstances that immigrants face today, while also describing a profoundly heterogeneous immigrant population: immigrants to the United States display every conceivable background and arrive with different levels of education and varying abilities.

Current immigration levels are as high as they were in the 1920s, but the demographics of the immigrants coming to the United States has changed radically since then. In the 1920s, 90% of immigrants hailed from Europe or Canada. In 2009, only 15% of the immigrant population came from those areas.

More than 30% came from Asia, and another 22% were born in Mexico or Central America, with the remaining immigrant populations coming from Oceania, Africa, and South America and the Caribbean. The foreign-born population is now 12.5% of the entire United States population, approximately 38.5 million people.

The statistics in the report indicate certain patterns amongst these immigrant populations. More than half of the unauthorized immigrants in the United States reside in only four states (California, Texas, Nevada and Arizona), while immigrant populations in general tend to be clustered in more populous states. In most states, the foreign-born population (i.e. legal immigrant) percentage changed from either slight negative growth to an increase of over 6% across the different states in the union.

National

Unauthorized immigration to the United States remains the most contentious aspect of immigration policy. Barriers along the U.S. border with Mexico were built to stymie the flow of illegal immigrants into the Southwestern U.S.

Region of origin has been associated with certain trends in age across various immigrant populations. While most immigrants (over 70%) were of working age—defined as 2564—Mexicans and Central Americans were generally younger, with over half of the immigrant population from that region in the age range of 25-44. By comparison, European and Canadian immigrant populations were only 29% of the same age group, and Asian immigrants of that age group made up 41% of the total number of Asian immigrants. The gap in the statistics is compelling: while three-quarters of the foreignborn population is of working age, the same is true for less than half of the native-born population.

Statistics about the unauthorized foreign-born population in the US (i.e. unauthorized immigrants) are less reliable, but nonetheless indicate certain population trends. The number of unauthorized immigrants in the United States is estimated to be 10.8 million, though this number may be as high as 11.1 million. The average annual growth in this population from 2000 to 2009 has been about 3%. Unauthorized immigrants make up approximately 4% of the total population of the United States.

National Issues Affecting Immigrants Immigrant populations face substantial disparities in income and education levels when compared to native populations.

While the median family income for native-born families was $55,000 in 2009, the median family income for both naturalized

and non-citizen foreign-born families was $45,000, with the median family income for non-naturalized families dropping to $36,000 per year.

Substantial differences in median family income also exist amongst immigrants from different regions. European and Canadian-born citizens had a median family income of $58,000 per year, compared to $65,000 for Asian families and $33,000 for Mexican and Central American families.

Immigrant families are also far more likely than native families to live in poverty. Currently, the poverty line in the United States is set at $22,000 per year for a family of four.

14% of native-born American families live below the poverty line, compared to 19% of foreign-born families. But this 19% statistic doesn’t tell the whole story – the percentage living below the poverty line of non-citizen families is 25% when compared to the 11% of naturalized families who live below the poverty line.

Education, too, is a divisive characteristic within immigrant populations from different regions. 29% of foreign-born individuals had not completed the equivalent of a high school education, compared to only 8% of the native population.

Only 32% of the native born population and 29% of the foreign population had completed a bachelor’s degree. Again, there are substantial distinctions between different immigrant communities: just 7% immigrants from Mexico and Central America had completed or exceeded the level of a bachelor’s degree, while more than 55% of Asian immigrants possessed a bachelor’s degree or higher.

Winter 2012

9

National

Immigration in New Haven and Connecticut

Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, large populations of European immigrants settled across Connecticut, becoming essential to the large industrial plants constructed across the state. But it should come as no surprise that Connecticut’s immigrant population has mirrored the changing demographics of the American immigrant population.

Connecticut currently has the 12th highest percentage of foreign-born individuals in the United States, with the immigrant population making up approximately 12.3% of the total state population. Major immigrant populations tend to come from Asia (India and China), Europe (Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom), Canada, and Latin America and the Caribbean (Jamaica, Brazil, Ecuador, and Mexico). Most of these populations have increased dramatically in the past decade – some as much as 70-90%.

Nearly half (43%) of Connecticut’s immigrants live in the eight largest localities of Connecticut, namely: Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, Norwalk, Stamford and Waterbury, with foreign-born individuals comprising from 10 to 34% of the population of these cities.

In New Haven, current immigration policy focuses on grappling with questions of unauthorized immigration. The County of New Haven, according to the 2010 Census, is home to approximately 860,000 individuals, 129,000 of whom live in the city proper. The percentage of foreign-born individuals in the county is approximately 11%, while the foreign-born population of New Haven city is over 16%.

Over 30% of households speak a language at home that is not English. But complications have ensued concerning the gray area surrounding unauthorized immigrants, because limited documentation means limited access to public benefits and structures.

New Haven’s response to this issue has been to create a pilot ID card system that allows New Haven residents to apply for an identification card regardless of their immigration status. Cards can be used to get driver’s licenses, open bank accounts, pay parking meters, and take out library books. The program continues to this day, four years later, even as critics continue to voice disagreements about its existence.

The Elm City is the first urban area in America to institute a program like this, though plans are underway to introduce similar cards in New York City. While the local support for this initiative has been overwhelmingly positive, outside groups have protested the legitimizing effect of this program on undocumented immigrants. As for the immigrants themselves, 11,000 New Haven residents currently hold this card.

Moving Forward

In May 2011, President Barack Obama announced a new immigration policy plan. While the implementation of this plan has been stalled in large part by continued economic upheaval and divided government, the plan lays the groundwork for a new vision for immigration in America. Unlike his predecessor, President Obama did not solely emphasize securing our borders, but also remarked on the need to re-shape the American dialogue on immigration to consider the great economic benefits which immigrants bring to this nation.

New Haven and Connecticut at large are useful illustrations of the larger problems facing immigrants in America, but they exist in context. While we focus on immigration in one area, we must also remember to consider the broader currents which continue to draw immigrants – both legal and illegal – to the United States. We must avoid the tendency to lump all immigrants into a single category or to stereotype certain types of immigrants; instead, we must step back from emotional rhetoric on both sides of the issue, and craft a comprehensive policy which accounts for the realities of our history as an immigrant nation and places the economic and social interests of the nation first.

Zoe Mercer-Golden is a junior in Davenport College.

Recent legislation has increased border enforcement and reduced the government benefits available to immigrants. Above, a man protests these new policies.

10

THE POLITIC

National

US Energy Policy and the Power of Lobbying

By Jason Parisi

U

S Energy Policy is a strange beast. Everybody knows that there are serious problems. We consume almost a quarter of global oil supply. Our power grid is outdated. In 2010, we emitted over 5.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide. We have no real national energy strategy. Part of the problem is the power of the US Energy lobby. From national publicity campaigns to significant personal and party political contributions, this influence is far reaching and profound. We need to escape the influence of various energy lobbies and free ourselves from the fossil fuel addiction.

Several sustainable energy lobbies helped augment America’s infamous ethanol production, now widely hailed as a short-sighted and socially destructive energy policy. In a world with over one billion chronically malnourished, the annual corn consumption for U.S. biofuel production could feed around 400 million people. Based on the current U.S. renewable fuel standard, around fifty percent of the U.S. corn crop will be dedicated to ethanol by 2015. In spite of such profound repercussions domestically and around the world, the U.S. has blatantly pursued ethanol production, neglecting responsibility within the international community.

Ironically, encouraging an ethanol boom inflated pressures on corn prices, causing some of the largest ethanol producers such as Hawkeye Energy and VeraSun to file for bankruptcy.

Republican Senator John McCain recently commented on the “outrageous power” of the ethanol industry, blaming its influence for the rejection of a recent amendment. However, U.S. senators voted recently in favor of repealing ethanol subsidies, saving the Government over $6 billion annually. From an international viewpoint, the damage may already been done.

After the 2008 and 2011 food crises, U.S. ethanol policy may have tainted America’s reputation around the world.

The Keystone XL Pipeline extension, first proposed in 2008, threatened to be an environmental hazard spanning the United States. TransCanada, the pipeline’s operator and proprietor increased its lobbying expenditure significantly, from $40,000 in 2006 to almost $800,000 in 2011, as the important regulatory decisions were being made. Moreover, some former TransCanada lobbyists held senior posts within the administration, including the former heads of Clinton’s election campaign. It has also emerged that State Officials provided TransCanada with advice, detailing methods for countering arguments against the pipeline’s extension: not only did TransCanada itself invest vast sums into lobbying, but it has influential friends within the government. This powerful crusade for the extension of the Keystone Pipeline threatens

America’s long term energy strategy.

Following the closing of the Keystone XL Pipeline until after the 2012 election, the Canadian prime minister hinted to President Obama that Canada may change its long term energy strategy to supplying the growing economies of Asia, in lieu of the US market, putting Obama and the administration in a difficult position. Canada is the US’s largest provider of oil, exporting over two million barrels a day to the US in 2010. In the medium term, the US will have to transition towards a low energy, sustainable economy, but it should maintain its main suppliers before it adjusts.

Special interest energy groups have impaired intelligent American energy policy, damaging our international reputation. Lobbyists and their related parties have held America back in areas where it previously excelled. Things, however, appear to be changing, albeit slowly. The recent delay of the Keystone XL Pipeline, although not a complete rejection, was a positive sign of progress, as is the end of tax credits and many subsidies to biofuel producers. There are still areas that must be improved. The twenty-first century will undoubtedly be among America’s and humanity’s most challenging. The last thing that America needs is a further degradation of its international standing. By not succumbing to lobbying and by taking decisions which may be unpopular, America’s leaders may finally be able to leverage the American creative power to create a just, sustainable and conscientious energy policy, and to make right, what we previously made so wrong.

Jason Parisi is a freshman in Pierson College.

Thanks in part to lobbyists, U.S. energy policy is dominated by fossil fuels like oil.

Winter 2012

11

National

A Symbolic Victory in Iraq Iconic Imagery and the Legacy of the Iraq War

By Noah Remnick

I

n war and in history, images matter. Powerful and accessible, an image can provide an enduring symbol, encapsulating the legacy of an entire war in a single shot. Alfred Eisenstaedt’s iconic photograph for Life magazine of an American sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square during a victory parade did just that, and it will forever be linked to World War II and its aftermath – the rise of the American century. The defining image of the end of the Cold War is the film and photographs of young Germans taking a sledgehammer to the Berlin Wall in 1989. Ordinary citizens hacked away at the Wall, both a tangible and abstract divide between East and West, literally tearing it apart with their hands and freeing their passage to the other side.

Coming at the end of each conflict, these images seem almost uncanny; as though historians had willed them into being, in order to help them perfectly encapsulate the tenor of their war narratives.

But which images will accompany the history of the Iraq War? As the last American troops prepare to come home after

Alfred Eisenstaedt’s iconic photograph for Life magazine.

12

THE POLITIC

nine years, it remains unclear. Perhaps this anticlimactic ending to the war – a resolution absent rich, lasting images – is appropriate. After declaring victory in Iraq so many times and being proven wrong just as frequently, all America can do now is slink away, sheepishly, trying not to humiliate itself on the way out. Perhaps my outlook is cynical, but while some may look back on the Iraq War and see blossoming democracy and a people freed from the shackles of a tyrannical leader, I see an America disgraced—by our deceitful government, by our manipulative and manipulated media, by our inhumane violations at Abu Ghraib, by our permanently tarnished reputation abroad.

Iraq is certainly in a better place than it was nine years ago – it is undeniable that the present Iraqi administration, for all its faults, is a far better government than anyone even hoped for during the long, brutal regime of Saddam Hussein – but this transition came at a heavy toll for both nations involved.

For the United States, nearly 5,000 soldiers died. An estimated 20 percent of survivors have suffered major head or spinal injuries, 18 percent have suffered serious wounds, six percent are amputees, and over 7,000 veterans will require fulltime care as a result of severe brain, spinal, and other injuries, not to mention the impact of the war on the mental health of veterans, who suffer a high number of suicides. The outlook is bleak economically, as, according to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, the war will cost the United States approximately three trillion dollars including delayed costs.

The Iraq War also sapped resources needed for American efforts in the War on Terror. Additionally, the United States suffered a tremendous political cost, with its international image sullied and moral standing compromised.

For Iraq, around 16,000 Security Forces are dead, as well as 25,000 insurgents, and well over 100,000 civilians. According to the United Nation’s Children’s Fund, more than half a million Iraqi children have been traumatized by the war and need psychological counseling, and over two million children have been displaced from their homes. A 2007 report from OXFAM and the NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq noted that, “Iraqis are suffering from a growing lack of food, shelter, water and sanitation, health care, education and employment.” The persisting violence since then has only exacerbated these problems.

Perhaps the image from Iraq that provides the most apt symbol for the war is the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square. The event, arranged by the American military, was sold to the public by both the media and the government as a populist uprising and a moment of

National

victory. Mere minutes after the statue had reached the ground, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the press, “The scenes of free Iraqis celebrating in the streets, riding American tanks, tearing down the statues of Saddam Hussein in the center of Baghdad, are breathtaking. Watching them, one cannot help but think of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Iron Curtain.”

But the toppling in Firdos Square wasn’t the end of a short war – it was the beginning of a long one, and news of the fallen statue was minor compared to the violence and looting occurring throughout Baghdad. Several reporters cautioned their bosses and editors back in the United States that the event was comparatively insignificant, but the reporters were told to cover it anyway. By the next morning, victorious images, cropped to perfectly dramatize the scale of the scene, were splashed across front pages around the world along with hyperbolic language to match. According to a 2005 study from George Washington University titled “As Goes the Statue, So Goes the War,” between the hours of 11 a.m. and 8 p.m., Fox replayed the toppling every 4.4 minutes and CNN every 7.5 minutes on the day that it occurred, continuously using the world “historic” when discussing the event.

That same week, 13 American soldiers died, but the American public wouldn’t have seen these images, as the Bush administration had prohibited the release of photographs of the coffins of American soldiers – a ban that would later be lifted by the Obama administration – in order to curb American unease over the war.

Meanwhile, government officials were using the footage from Firdos Square to saturate the public with images of false victory in Iraq. Three weeks after the toppling, President Bush delivered his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech, in which he declared victory atop the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. During the address, he cited the images of the fallen statue as an indication of “the arrival of a new era.”

Without the narrative of a false triumph in Firdos Square, Bush would have had a much more difficult time trying to sell the idea of a “Mission Accomplished” to the American people. But with these images aiding its account of the war, the Bush administration was able to declare victory long

“Government officials were using the footage from Firdos Square to saturate the public with images of false victory in Iraq.”

The toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square. before the war’s end.

Just as the Bush administration lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq as a means of justifying the war, it lied about the importance of the toppled statue as a symbol of victory. And in both cases, the media bought into these falsehoods and sold them to the public as undeniable truths.

In this way, the image of the fallen statue serves as a perfect symbol for the Iraq War. The United States was able to take down the symbol of evil in the statue, and eventually we even took down Saddam himself, although he, too, was merely a symbolic figure by the time of his capture, despite all of his past atrocities.

Today, Iraq faces a troubling future. The country’s civil society has been shredded after eight years of sectarian civil war, and it is now home to a small but active al Qaeda franchise. The United States is withdrawing troops without having brokered a deal between the Kurds and Arab Iraqis, leaving that conflict still simmering, and without having established state borders for the Kurds. Meanwhile, the Sunni-Shia conflict rages on, Iraq’s oil industry is stagnating, and Iran has become increasingly influential.

Perhaps there is no enduring image of the end of this war because an enduring end to the war – for Iraqis, and for Americans – has yet to arrive.

Noah Remnick is a freshman in Saybrook College.

Winter 2012

13

National

In the Shadow of the Crescent The Iraqi Pursuit of a National Identity

By Justin Schuster

O

n January 1, 2012 the last of the United States’ troops pulled out of Iraq. In October, President Obama noted, “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.”

While this date may mark the end of a long and troublesome chapter in American history, there is no visible relief in the future for Iraq. In a region rife with religious and political turmoil, Iraq is faced with challenges that extend far beyond immediate poverty and insufficient infrastructure. The entrenched religious and ethnic rifts constitute a grave threat to the future stability of the nation.

Iraq is not a cultural melting pot; rather, it is a sharply divided nation steeped in a longstanding history of sectarian violence.

Centuries of religious power struggles have threatened to tear the region apart at the seams. Despite the seemingly unbridgeable religious divide, unity in Iraq can still occur with a strong national identity. The question remains: will a unifying national identity ever supersede deep ethnic and religious divisions?

The path to nationalism is obstacle ridden. Firstly, the diverse religious and ethnic landscape defines Iraq’s political climate. With a population that is 75% Arab and 20% Kurd (with Assyrians and Iraqi Turkmen comprising the remaining 5%) as well as 65% Shia and 35% Sunni, the ethnic and religious divides are stark and deeply rooted. Since its origin, the region has rarely seen peace. From Cyrus to Alexander the Great, the occupation of ancient world superpowers characterizes the history of the region. The religious conflict and the origin of the Sunni-Shia split, however, can be traced back to the 7th century shortly after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in the year 632. In a dispute surrounding the rightful succession of the Prophet, a conflict with religious, political and social ramifications, which resonates to this day, arose. Centuries of religious power struggles followed during the Islamic Golden Age. This period reached its cultural high water mark, yet low point for Sunni-Shia relations, under the Sunni Abbasid Caliphate, which established Baghdad as its capital in the 8th century.

But once again the occupation of foreign powers swept through the region, ending the Golden Age and accentuating the political and religious power battle. The Mongols in 1257 brought an end to the Abbasid Caliphate. Once more, power struggles ensued as the Safavid dynasty clashed with the Ottoman Empire in modern day Iraq. The Safavids of Iran brought a groundswell of Shia influence to the region in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire, for nearly four centuries, ruled the region as a Sunni state. Through the widespread use of religion as a weapon in the geopolitical power struggle, the Sunni-Shia gap was further widened.

Britain, however, in the early 20th century brought the in-

14

THE POLITIC

tensity of the religious conflict to an all-time low. In imposing a Hashemite monarchy on Iraq, Britain arbitrarily partitioned the region without consideration for ethnic and territorial divisions.

Britain further inflamed the already fragile Sunni-Shia relationship by granting overwhelming power to the Sunni minority. Though decades of coups and political upheaval followed, the misinformed actions of the British paved the way for the rise of Hussein’s Baathists and the nadir of religious and ethnic relations in Iraq.

Despite harsh criticism for a lack of cultural awareness, the United States did its utmost to deftly navigate the difficult religious terrain in Iraq. One can assert that the United States failed to estimate fully the task of nation building in an inherently unstable region. So too, one may posit that the United States did not altogether consider the religious divides before conducting the war; but when faced with the challenge of rebuilding a shattered nation, the United States avoided the route of their errant British predecessors. In overseeing the Iraqi constitution’s creation, the United States properly managed the centuries-old religious conundrum, crafting a constitution that fused tenets of Islam with palatable elements of democracy. The first article establishes that the Iraqi government is “republican, representative, parliamentary, and democratic.” The second article affirms that Islam is the official state religion and “No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam.”

Perhaps most importantly, the constitution establishes a pluralistic state. Article three of the constitution states “Iraq is a country of multiple nationalities, religions, and sects.” Just in acknowledging the vast religious and ethnic diversity of the country, the constitution takes a great step in mending the religious divide.

Despite the progressive nature of the constitution, its credibility extends only as far as the people are willing to accept it. It is arguable that the drafting of the constitution further cemented the Sunni-Shia rift, with sweeping percentages of Sunni Iraqis opposing the constitution. In the time since the 2005 ratification of the constitution, a series of backroom deals have led to a virtual quota system for legislative representation in an attempt to appease the Sunni power base. As a result, political gridlock has taken the nation hostage. With a weak legislature and executive, a power vacuum has arisen in its place. Accordingly, a strong judicial system is vital to maintain the tenets of the Iraqi constitution. While the constitution contains the key to plurality in government and proportional representation, much more than an article will be needed to ease Sunni-Shia tensions.

The Sunni uproar regarding Article 119 of the constitution exemplifies how factional, religious self-interest presently super-

National

sedes the overall national betterment. Article 119 states, “One or more governorates shall have the right to organize into a region based on a request to be voted on in a referendum.” Writer Fred Kaplan encapsulates the Sunni discontent when he posits, “Here is the Sunni nightmare in plain black and white: The Kurds are allowed to form a single supra-region in the oil-rich north, the Shiites to form theirs in the oil-rich south, while the Sunnis are left in the oil-dry center.” A nation cannot survive where religious geopolitics overtake the overarching national interest.

Religious tension is not the only stressor that plagues Iraq; it is a failed state in other ways. Foreign Policy’s failed state index ranks Iraq as 9th in their list of the world’s failing states in 2011.

This is a vast improvement from its second place finish from just four years ago. In its pursuit of a national identity, Iraq is faced with rebuilding a nation from scratch, and though the United States has invested billions into redevelopment projects, a staggeringly small percentage of this money has yielded visible impact due to widespread corruption and graft. As politicians dip their hands into state coffers, the typical citizen lacks the necessary education and health care. So too do rural Iraqis lack clean water and adequate sewage treatment, illuminating that far

The U.S. withdrawal leaves the future for Iraqi children unclear - will their country succumb to religious conflict? more than a religious divide stands in the way of the realization of a national identity.

Afflicted by religious conflict, poverty and corruption, Iraq is stuck in a national quagmire. While poverty and corruption are hardly unique to Iraq, the intensity of the Sunni-Shia rift sets Iraq apart from other failing states. If a national identity is the panacea to religious divides, then Iraqis may look to the example of an unexpected former failing state: Rwanda. Clearly, Rwanda’s history of ethnic genocide differs vastly from Iraq’s history of religious strife and recent Western occupation. The economies, governments and cultures differ as well; however, the two nations share common pasts of deep-seeded, internal strife

and the task of rebuilding broken nations. Rwandan President Paul Kagame is certainly not without his faults, including a long history of political suppression and a mediocre human rights record. Nevertheless, under Kagame’s leadership, Rwanda has experienced a remarkable economic and cultural turnaround with policies that should be emulated by Iraq. In rebuilding a nation, Kagame promoted a culture of healing by fostering economic development, and his solution comprised a combination of economy-first policies and strong nationalistic messages. In formally outlawing ethnicity while also advancing the economic rebirth of Rwanda, Kagame has cultivated a united Rwandan identity.

While removing religion from Iraq as Kagame excised ethnicity from Rwanda is unimaginable, economic revitalization, on par with Rwanda’s Vision 2020, may be the solution to bringing unity to Iraq. The main aim of the Vision 2020 development policy is “to make Rwanda a middle income country by 2020.”

In the short term, this policy comprises macroeconomic stability and wealth creation, a transition to a knowledge based economy in the medium term and the strengthening of the middle class and fostering entrepreneurship in the long term. Moreover, Kagame has made environmental policies a priority and has provided free health care and education in the process.

While Rwanda’s Vision 2020 cannot be surgically implanted in Iraq, the key is its focus on economic revitalization. In the past ten years, Rwanda has experienced an average economic growth rate of 8%, a 300% rise in exports, and a booming tourism industry. Kagame buffeted this social-psychological recovery through economic development and a feeling of inclusivity.

By focusing on a unified, national identity, Kagame allowed his country to move past the ethnic divisions that plagued the country’s past. If Iraq is to not only survive but also flourish, then it must not allow religious divisions block the way to basic human dignity for all.

Iraq’s economic revitalization is intertwined with its national identity – religious tolerance and cooperation will flow from economic growth. When the roads are rebuilt, a national identity will follow. While the Iraqi constitution rhetorically outlines a brighter pluralistic future for the country, real change cannot occur through political gestures alone. Emphasizing unity and plurality through language is essential, but a culture of healing must be substantiated by an economic renaissance.

Justin Schuster is a freshman in Branford College.

Winter 2012

15

National

The Peloponessian War and American Democracy An Interview with Professor Donald Kagan Conducted by Shaun Tan Thucydides’ books on the Peloponnesian War relate the war between Athens and Sparta from 431 to 404 BC that ended with the fall of the Athenian Empire. His books established him as a preeminent historian. The Peloponnesian War remains relevant because of its lessons on power, democracy, and human nature. The Politic interviews Donald Kagan, Sterling Professor of Classics and History at Yale, and a scholar of Thucydides for over sixty years, on the lessons of the Peloponnesian War for democracy in America today.

The Politic: America’s Founding Fathers studied the Peloponnesian War and tried to design a system that would overcome the weaknesses of Athenian democracy.

How successful has their system been in overcoming those weaknesses?

DK: They were quite successful in avoiding the weaknesses inherent in direct democracy. The main weakness of which is the tyranny of the majority. The main thing they did was produce limited government. Unanticipated things were to be handled by the elastic clause, which was necessary but dangerous because elastic things tend to get more and more elastic. And so the government is getting much stronger than is compatible with the liberty that the Founding Fathers sought. The novelty of the American constitution was that it put liberty at the center of things. In ancient democracies the fundamental principle was equality, and equality and liberty are necessarily at odds with each other. If you don’t restrain democratic government you get a drive towards equality at the expense of liberty. Only by putting liberty at the center and permitting a degree of inequality can you have a free society.

One of the great menaces to liberty and popular government in recent history is the fact that the responsibility of the citizen to pay taxes to the government is being removed.

Something like 50% of the American people pay no direct tax, and that’s a violation of one of the principles the Founding Fathers regarded as really important: every citizen has to contribute to the upkeep of the common interest. The result of this is that those who do pay taxes have to pay even higher taxes. This is now approaching crisis proportions. This is the victory of equality at the expense of liberty.

The Politic: There’s a large gap in quality between the debates of ancient Athens and the debates in Congress and the public sphere in America today. Why is that?

DK: I think you can be deceived. We have only a few records of what went on in the Athenian assembly, and they were selected by historians, who only selected the speeches that were

16

THE POLITIC

extraordinary, and so we get a distorted idea of the quality of rhetoric in the assembly. There must have been thousands of perfectly routine and un-brilliant speeches.

The Politic: Let’s talk about some of the weaknesses of democracy that writers on the Peloponnesian War reveal.

In the debate on Mytilene, Cleon (an Athenian politician), scolded the Athenian people for their ‘addiction to argument’. He deplored how politics had become a form of entertainment where the people side with whoever is the better speaker. Do you see this in American politics today? How vulnerable is America to sophists and demagogues?

DK: We have carried that beyond belief. Politicians now have large staffs of alleged experts on rhetoric, politics, and all kinds of things, who help them rehearse. Politics has become an advertising business. We’ve always had a degree of that, but nobody before our time had the degree of technical, personal, and financial aid in preparing arguments.

People learn how to persuade people, if that’s what they spend their time doing, regardless of the quality of your argument or what you’re trying to sell. Our world is swamped with people who make a living off the art of persuasion.

The media turns politicians into attractions. Show-business is pervasive – we now treat political debate in the same way. The series of Republican debates in this campaign is like a TV road-show where people keep score like on American Idol. The whole thing takes on a show-biz character which apparently can’t be shaken out anymore. People who don’t happen to shine in show-biz are defeated, and people who are good on the camera are elevated, regardless of the quality of their arguments.

The Politic: The Peloponnesian War is a warning to future generations of what prolonged war does to the morality of people – how it makes them increasingly cruel.

What are the implications of this for the War on Terror?

National

DK: I think the longer it goes on, and the more serious the attacks are, the more violent the reaction will be. It’s in the nature of people that when somebody is out to kill you and kills people on your side or somebody dear to you, the natural reaction is tremendous anger and willingness to do all kinds of things you would normally never think of doing – a) for revenge, and b) to see that they don’t do it again. These are not irrational reactions, but they do tend to produce irrationality. You get very angry at those attackers and you want to destroy them.

The Politic: During the Peloponnesian War, both Athens and Sparta tried to propagate their respective systems in other cities to bolster their own security. Athens tried to spread democracy, whilst Sparta tried to spread oligarchy.

How vital are America’s efforts to promote democracy to its security?

DK: Very important. There really is a big difference between popular governments (democracies) and authoritarian states.

They really do act differently. People have said that there is no case of democracies in the modern world fighting each other.

There may be exceptions, but it’s very largely true.

The fact that democracies are commercial republics

means that they require the approval of the population to wage war, and that checks them because the people may have contrary wishes. The fact that they’re commercial means that their value system is likely to be much more calculated for normal human activities which are better in peacetime than in wartime. Going to war has a high price for people in such a society, and so it’s harder for them to go to war, and to sustain a war. Authoritarian governments don’t have those restraints, and they can go to war for some of the same reasons people have gone to war over the centuries: over something they deem to be a violation of their interests, or something they deem to be an insult.

If the US is interested in the preservation of peace, it would do well to foster liberal democratic states.

The Politic: In ancient Athens, democracy was frequently criticized by figures like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cleon, and Thucydides himself. Today it’s almost unheard of for any American public figure to question whether democracy in America is a good thing. Do you think we’ve lost anything from the absence of this debate?

DK: I think we have lost something. I think the questions always confronting a democracy are ‘Is democracy compatible

One of Raphael’s most famous paintings, The School of Athens. What can we take away from the experiences of Athenian democracy?

Winter 2012

17

National

with liberty? Is it compatible with justice?’ A question nobody thinks about anymore, but what the ancients were constantly concerned about was ‘How can you have a society that treats people who are grossly unequal equally? That’s unjust.’

There are defenses for why we do things the way we do. For instance, nobody can ever prove that one citizen is superior to another citizen in his right or ability to participate in government. You might say this man is too stupid or too ignorant to vote, but the fact of the matter is, you can’t be sure that he’s going to be worse than a guy with a PhD from Harvard – the second guy may have other human defects that are even more serious.

When somebody from the left makes a claim that we ought to have a certain result because that’s democratic, there can be debate on the merits of the suggestion, but you can never say ‘Is being democratic the only principle that’s involved? Would you like to have a democracy in which there is no liberty? A democracy is where everybody gets to decide what’s to be done in some political arena – what if they get together and decide that they’re not going to allow you to do X, Y and Z? Is that okay?’ We don’t talk about those things much anymore – well some people do, but you won’t hear much of that around Yale.

We’ve lost something from the absence of this debate.

We have political correctness, through which all sorts of really basic and important arguments are ruled out. I have myself been engaged in certain arguments on free speech, and there were too many occasions where it seemed that people’s rights to be heard on campus were taken away through mob action or bureaucratic rulings. That is not acceptable in a country like ours, and particularly in a university, that must hear all kinds of opinions, however hateful they may seem to some people, because otherwise we are out of business – we have ceased being an outfit that is interested in seeking what is true and what is wise. We should bring reason to play with those issues, and we can’t do that if we don’t argue with each other, or if we limit the argument so that we never hurt anybody’s feelings. We’re very much down that road now. We’ve lost quite a lot.

The Politic: What do you think of democracy? In general, is democracy the best system of governance?

DK: I think democracy meaning a combination of liberty and self-government is a requirement for a legitimate government.

In the sense that every citizen has rights that the government can’t take away, that there are limits to what the government can do to him, that ultimately the majority has the final say, but with restrictions to protect minorities.

It is not possible to justify any other kind of government.

Because otherwise you’d have to show that there are indeed

18

THE POLITIC

people who are discernibly and demonstrably superior to other people to justify the government’s behavior, and I don’t know how you can do that satisfactorily.

A legitimate government must also leave its people free to challenge laws or procedures by lawful means. But if the people use up all the lawful means and are unsuccessful, they’re obliged to obey the laws.

Citizens should also be free to leave whenever they like, taking their possessions with them without interference. That way anybody who is living there is living there by choice, and so he has the obligation to make contributions to the community, and to obey the laws, and to assist in upholding the laws. That is a moral obligation that goes with citizenship in a democracy. Every government that doesn’t follow those rules is not a government; it’s a prison.

The Politic: What solutions can we glean from the Peloponnesian War for improving America’s democratic system?

DK: In legal cases in ancient Athens, if the accused was convicted, the accuser would propose a penalty for the accused, and the accused would propose a penalty for himself. The jury could only choose one of the two penalties. If either the accuser or the accused didn’t get a certain minimum number of votes from the jury, he’d have to pay a fine.

Compare that with what goes on in an American trial. I think adopting the Athenian system would be a terrific idea, because it leads to moderation on both sides. Both accuser and accused are urged by the system to come up with the best penalties without irritating the jury by asking for too much.

Another thing I’d like to adopt is a mechanism for deterring frivolous suits. Our system desperately needs that.

We have so many frivolous suits because parties figure they [have] nothing to lose. You got these lawyers who say ‘We’ll only collect if we win, so why not do it?’, and that encourages all this terrible litigation. If you charge them if they don’t get enough votes from the jury that’ll make them more reluctant.

[The] trick is to come up with a way of doing that that’s balanced and doesn’t deter people who’ve really been abused.

Also, American trials can go on forever, and the judicial process is so clogged up that you may have to wait years to get your case heard – there’ve been many cases in which the person involved in the lawsuit was dead before the case came forward. In the Athenian system every case was over in one day. There should be a time limit for cases to speed up the whole process. We can learn something from the Athenians there.

Shaun Tan is an international relations Masters student.

National

Mississippi’s Red Herring Why Pro-Life Momentum Won’t Stop with Initiative 26

By Marissa Medansky

I

n the first half of 2011 alone, nineteen states implemented over 160 pieces of policy and legislation related to reproductive health. Almost half of these provisions sought to curtail access to abortion in some way. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research-driven reproductive policy non-profit, these new provisions—many of which involve restrictions on late-term abortion or mandatory pre-abortion waiting periods and counseling—signify a sharp increase from trends seen in previous years.

This momentum pushes the pro-life movement forward from multiple angles. While conservative lawmakers from South Dakota to Ohio push for anti-abortion policies in their respective states, Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romney and Michelle Bachmann flaunt their anti-abortion credentials on the national stage, lambasting their opponents for failing to consistently uphold the sanctity of life.

And though recent polls by Gallup and Rasmussen indicate that a slight majority of Americans still identify themselves as pro-choice, their preferences suggest otherwise.

Most Americans support mandatory waiting periods, bans on so-called “partial birth” abortion, and parental notification laws for minors—all policies designed to, at least to some extent, restrict access to abortion.

Yet while anti-abortion sentiment carried pre-abortion

An anti-abortion protester outside a Planned Parenthood clinic.

counseling to Kansas, brought fraudulent crisis pregnancy centers to South Dakota, and restricted insurance coverage in Nebraska, pro-life momentum has found itself facing an unlikely roadblock in an even more unlikely place: Mississippi.

In November, Mississippians voted on Initiative 26, a measure that, if passed, would amend the state’s constitution to define “person” as any human being from the moment of fertilization. In the conservative bastion of Mississippi, a personhood amendment seemed like a natural extension of the pro-life beliefs already engrained in the state’s political and social culture.

From the start, pundits and politicians alike speculated whether Initiative 26 would pass. The pro-life camp found a cast of big-name supporters in Jackson. Lt. Governor Phil Bryant—now Mississippi’s incumbent governor—backed the bill, as Haley Barbour, the state’s current governor, and Johnny Dupree, a Democrat and Bryant’s gubernatorial opponent. Opponents of the amendment found their support in both newly formed coalitions and familiar acronyms: the NAACP, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood among them.

Strong grassroots movements emerged on both sides of the debate. Yet despite a hard-fought campaign—and, perhaps more curiously, despite Mississippi’s conservative leanings— Initiative 26 fell, claiming only 42% of the vote.

So what went wrong—or right—in Mississippi? Why did the pro-life movement face one of its biggest challenges of the year in one of the most conservative states in the nation, and what does this suggest about the future of pro-life politics today?

First, Mississippi voters turned a skeptical eye to extremism—at the very least, they found little solace in the muddled dialogue leading up to the vote, which pitted two conflicting sets of alarmist facts against each other. Critics of the debate, including organizations like Mississippians for Healthy Families, claimed that the language of the Initiative 26 would extend far beyond the abortion clinic, effectively banning basic reproductive health services like in vitro fertilization and “common forms of birth control like the pill.” Even Haley Barbour, though he ultimately voted

Winter 2012

19

National

for the measure, called the amendment “ambiguous.”

Supporters of the amendment, however, asserted that their bottom line was curbing access to abortion, and abortion alone they discussed. In a pre-election message, Bryant, who compared his anti-26 opponents to both Satan and the Third Reich, maintained that the measure was “only about one thing”: abortion.

Yet confronted with the possibility of inadvertently restricting access to other medical procedures, Mississippi voters preferred continued access to reproductive rights over an unintentional restriction banning their most basic reproductive freedoms. The results seen in Mississippi reflect the slidingscale framework with which most Americans conceptualize reproductive rights; while most Americans do not support late-term abortions, a slight majority supports abortion in the first term, while a significant majority supports the use of contraceptives and other forms of birth control.

Although the failure of Initiative 26 signifies a major victory for the pro-choice camp, the battle over reproductive rights still rages, its effects manifested in two separate battlefields. Consider that most pro-life voters in Mississippi can still rest easy: the state plays host to only one single abortion clinic.

And Mississippi isn’t the exception to the rule, either.

Over 80% of American women live in counties without ready access to an abortion, compounding the impact of recent legislation and forcing women to endure escalating burdens to simply procure the procedure. When actually obtaining an abortion comes with such heavy disincentives, the legality of the procedure itself proves somewhat of a red herring.

Meanwhile, access to abortion in America will only decrease in the near future, as over half of American abortion providers fall in the 50-and-over demographic, and few medical students seek the kind of proactive training that would equip them to provide these procedures in the future.

Organizations like Medical Students for Choice cite the threat of violence as one of most significant reasons medical students choose not to become abortion providers, even if they consider themselves pro-choice and express an interest in reproductive health.

The threat of violence and harassment is a harsh reality. Almost 90% of abortion providers report some sort of pro-life picketing at the site of their clinic; nearly a fifth see instances of vandalism. For the extremist side of the antiabortion movement, where emphasis points toward grassroots

20

THE POLITIC

activism and away from judicial or political methods, pickets and vandalism form just the tip of the iceberg.

Whereas mainstream pro-life movements favor gradual change with the goal of assimilating anti-abortion policy into a secular society, anti-abortion extremists tend to take matters into their own hands. Whereas mainstream pro-life movements concern themselves with ultimately overturning Roe v.

Wade, anti-abortion extremists adopt a terroristic approach: as long as women are too scared to get abortions, and doctors are too scared to provide them, why should legality matter?

Anti-abortion extremism emerged in the 1980s, when a group of men calling themselves the Army of God kidnapped an abortion provider and his wife. Today, the Army of God functions as an umbrella organization that influences, motivates, and supports anti-abortion terrorism throughout the United States, using models of leaderless resistance. For many anti-abortion extremists, clinic violence proves a popular approach; extremists claim responsibility for no less than 200 instances of clinic bombings or arsons.

In 1993, the first known murder of an abortion provider by an anti-abortion extremist occurred, when Michael Griffin murdered Dr. David Gunn, a Pensacola OB-GYN. The most recent murder, in which Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed while working at his church in Wichita, serves as classic case study for the effectiveness of anti-abortion terrorism. While pro-choice activists hoped the murder of a highly respected medical professional would galvanize doctors and medical students to pick up where Tiller left off, the murder had the opposite effect, driving doctors away from their existing practices, and discouraging medical students from pursuing them.

The mainstream pro-life approach exemplified by the rise in anti-abortion legislation and the extremist approach exemplified by the rise in anti-abortion terrorism have very different goals, and, aside from some similar rhetorical flourishes, very different methodologies. But for pro-choice Americans and women across the country, they have equivalent consequences: restricting, and in many cases removing, their access to abortion. The pro-life momentum that took a hit in Mississippi will continue on two separate battlefields, legal and extralegal; to counter it, the pro-choice movement must fight back on both fronts.

Marissa Medansky is a freshman in Morse College.

National

The Super PAC Election

By Eric Stern

T

he sun beat down on the crowd outside the Federal Election Commission headquarters, but the scores of assembled people seemed unfazed. Instead, they stared transfixed at the man they had been waiting for hours to see.

“Some people have cynically asked, ‘Is this some kind of joke?’” comedian Steven Colbert told the crowd. “Well I for one don’t think that participating in a democracy is a joke. I don’t think that wanting to know what the rules are is a joke.”

“But I do have one federal election law joke if you’d like to hear it,” he added. “Knock, knock?”

“Who’s there?” the crowd dutifully replied.

“Unlimited union and corporate campaign contributions,” Colbert said.

“Unlimited union and corporate campaign contributions who?” called back the crowd.

“That’s the thing,” Colbert answered slyly, “I don’t think I should have to tell you.”

Whether or not Colbert’s FEC meeting was in fact a joke, it addressed one of the most consequential political phenomena in recent memory: the impact of so-called “Super PACs” (one of which Colbert successfully formed

this summer). Super PACs, entities that may solicit unlimited sums from often-anonymous individuals and other groups, have changed the campaign landscape entirely and have done so largely without the knowledge of most Americans. According to The New York Times, however, Super PACs are, “by far the most noxious weed yet to emerge in the lawless new jungle of campaign finance.”

“For the first time,” the Times continued in an editorial, “[a] campaign will be dominated by political action committees that exist solely to promote specific candidates. While a candidate’s Winter 2012

21

National

campaign is limited to $2,500 per election from each donor, the Super PACs can collect unlimited amounts… and they plan to.”

So what exactly is a Super PAC? The landmark 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission drastically altered political campaigning. The ruling, which upended campaign finance precedent dating back to the 1970s, stated that corporations and unions can now spend unlimited amounts from their treasuries. And if they contribute through a 501(c)(4) organization, such contributions can be made anonymously.

There are nearly 5,000 PACs nationwide, which are private groups organized to advance or inhibit legislation, a political issue, or a political candidate. PACs may not, however, coordinate with a candidate or political party. The two types of PACs in this country are connected PACs — organizations founded by businesses

Democrats “don’t have a choice, because the other side is doing it — would you send David to fight Goliath without a slingshot?” or unions that can only collect funds from shareholders and members, and non-connected PACs — groups with an ideological or political mission that can accept funds from any person or organization.

The Citizens United ruling, however, allowed for a third type of po-

22

THE POLITIC

litical action committee — the “Super PAC.” Super PACs are legally allowed to directly attack political candidates, a luxury not afforded to regular political action committees. Also unlike other PACs, which are bound by contribution limits, Super PACs may raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals and other organizations. Not even a year after the Citizens United decision, right-leaning Super PACs had raised $35 million and left-leaning Super PACs had raised $28 million for the 2010 midterm elections. Super PACs have “opened the door to the clearest, easiest way to spend unlimited funds on an election,” said Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman who worked for John McCain’s presidential campaign, to Politico. “This is pretty much the holy grail that people have been looking for.”

Super PACs still must disclose their donors, a fact that dissuaded many potential contributors who feared public harassment and solicitations for more funds. One of the first post-Citizens United Super PACs, American Crossroads, an organization started by wunderkind GOP strategist Karl Rove, initially lauded Super PACs’ transparency. But the group’s fundraising sputtered as donors hesitated to give large sums of money in their own name. Indeed, within a month, a sister group called Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS, for short) was created and registered under a different section of the tax code, 501(c)(4), that does not require donor disclosure.

501(c)(4) groups, which by definition exist for the promotion of social wefare, are not bound by the same transparency requirements that plague other fundraising apparati. To qualify for such a designation, however, more than half of the money such a group raises must go toward noncampaign activities. But 501(c)(4)s are tax-exempt and have proven to be

a shockingly effective tools for raising large sums of money.

Following the advent of Crossroads GPS, Rove’s Super PAC proceeded to raise some $70 million for the 2010 election — and that was just one of the roughly 200 or so existing Super PACs. But American Crossroads is far from done.

“It’s a bigger prize in 2012, and that’s changing the White House,” Robert Duncan, the chairman of American Crossroads said to the New York Times. “We’ve planted the flag for permanence, and we believe that we will play a major role for 2012.”

Who’s winning the Super PAC cash?

According to a 2010 analysis by the Washington Post, “Groups favoring GOP candidates have outspent Democratic supporters by more than 3 to 1, mirroring an overall surge in spending by the Republican Party and its allies.” Indeed, in 2010, Democrats campaigned against Super PACs and the influx of shadowy campaign cash.

President Obama famously declared that anonymously funded conservative PACs are “a threat to our democracy.”

In the wake of the Democrats’ midterm “shellacking,” however, left-leaning groups have largely rethought their position on outside campaign funds.

Democrats “don’t have a choice, because the other side is doing it — would you send David to fight Goliath without a slingshot?” asked Erica Payne, who helped begin the Democracy Alliance, a partnership of major liberal donors.

Disclosures this year reveal that GOP-oriented Super PACs are once again outpacing their Democraticleaning rivals. A study released midway through 2011 by the Center for Responsive Politics found that conservative Super PACs received $17.6 million in the first half of the year — roughly 80 percent of the money came from

National

Colbert recently formed the Super PAC “Making a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.”

35 donors — while liberal Super PACs had received $7.6 million in the same time — about 80 percent of the money came from just 23 donors. Republican positions on taxation and regulation, it seems, have allowed right-leaning Super PACs to appeal to wealthy donors more easily. An oil magnate, after all, is more likely to give to a candidate who has vowed to fight to preserve the tax breaks the industry enjoys.

Super PACs that campaign on behalf of Republicans raise money from a diverse groups of individuals and organizations, including many Wall Street firms, oil and gas companies, and a number of wealthy individuals, including Texas real estate magnate Bob Perry and the often-villified Koch brothers. Democratic Super PACs, however, have thus far been heavily

dependent on labor unions. Under the leadership of Democratic power players such as former White House Counsel Bill Burton — who works for Priorities USA, a left-leaning Super PAC — several wealthy donors have begun to contribute large sums of money. Among these people are Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation, Steve Bing, a businessman and film producer, and Leo Hindery, an investor.

Both sides are sure to be more and more dependent on outside campaign outfits such as Super PACs in 2012 and for years to come.

Impact on the 2012 Race If the 2012 election were only funded by traditional fundraising apparati, such

as party campaign organizations and the candidates themselves, the Democrats would be winning the cash race by a landslide. But this is certainly not the case. Even as President Obama and the established campaign outfits — like the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee — continue to outpace their Republican counterparts, liberal activists and Democratic Party officials worry that the outside cash on the other side of the aisle may be their undoing.

According to ABC, seven of the eight leading GOP Presidential contenders have at least one Super PAC providing considerable financial support. The Mitt Romney-allied Restore Our Future Super PAC, for example, brought in more than $12 million in the first half of 2011 from just 90 donors.

According to Politico, “not a single check was under four figures and most were in the five and six-figure range.”

Rove’s American Crossroads, on the other hand, recently doubled its 2012 fundraising goal from $120 million to $240 million.

“As has been the case with independent groups in past elections, Super PACs will likely target presidential swing states and close federal and state elections, ignoring other states and elections,” said election law expert Lloyd Mayer of Notre Dame law school in an interview. “In the targeted states and elections, they will tend to run more negative ads than either the candidates or the political parties, since doing so will generally not hurt the image of the candidate they support (as it might if the candidate ran the ad him or herself).”

Super PACs, however, are not simply providing candidates with financial muscle. Non-traditional candidates such as former pizza mogul Herman Cain may lack serious campaign experience and know-how, but Super PAC’s

Winter 2012

23

National

can now fill these gaps. The Americans for Herman Cain Super PAC had been working overtime the last few months making phone calls, recruiting supporters and organizing campaign operations in the early primary states. “We’re operating with people with a lot of experience,” said Americans for Herman Cain Super PAC treasurer Scott Mackenzie to the Washington Times. “I don’t know what kind of experience some of his campaign staff has had.”

Nonetheless, thanks in large part to Super PACs, 2012 will undoubtedly be the most expensive election in history. The 2008 Presidential race broke records with its $1 billion price tag, but the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics estimates that all 2012 campaigns could cost close to six billion dollars.

“I would estimate the total spending [of Super PACs] in the 2012 election will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars,” added Mayer. “This total is dwarfed by the total amount spent by candidates and political parties — each major party Presidential candidate alone will spend in the hundreds of millions of dollars — but because the Super PAC spending will be more concentrated on swing states and close races than candidate and political party spending, it will have a disproportionate impact.”

To Infinity and Beyond Super PACs, it appears, have no intention of slowing up. And despite the unprecedented fundraising power of Super PACs and 501(c)(4) organizations, some political operatives are eager for more. Earlier this year, James Bopp, who argued Citizens United before the Supreme Court, asked the FEC to allow political candidates to coordinate with PACs. Campaign finance regulations, Bopp argued, “only [apply] to spending, not to the fundraising.” Bopp’s plan for an even more powerful Super

24

THE POLITIC

PAC — a “Super Duper PAC” according to Mother Jones — was defeated by the FEC in late June. Bopp and his allies, however, do not plan on dropping the matter.

“In the wake of the Democrats’ midterm “shellacking”... left-leaning groups have largely rethought their position on outside campaign funds.”

“Campaign finance laws inhibit free speech,” said Sean Parnell, President of the Center for Competitive Politics, which opposes nearly all campaign finance laws. “The First Amendment is not a guarantee that all voices will be heard as often or as effectively as all other voices. It’s just a guarantee that the government won’t step in and say, ‘OK, you’ve spoken enough.’”

Indeed, with the friendliest Supreme Court toward lax campaign finance laws in generations, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Bopp may get his Super Duper PAC in the end.

According to Mayer, it is likely that campaign finance laws will become even looser in the future. “First, the current political stalemate in Washington makes it highly unlikely that any of the current efforts to tighten the rules through, for example, increased disclosure or prohibiting election-related spending by federal contractors, will become law. Second, emboldened by the Citizens United decision, there are numerous pending court challenges to the remaining laws. It is possible,

probably likely, that at least some of those challenges will succeed.”

Nonetheless, as some Democratic and Republican operatives stress, Super PACs can’t do everything. “I don’t think these Super PACs will recruit. I don’t think that the Super PACs will decide the kind of inside information that is necessary of how to talk to a candidate and prepare them for what’s ahead,” National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions said on C-Span. “In a marketplace that changes so rapidly, it will be up to the [traditional party campaign] committees and me to make sure we have top flight candidates, bluechip candidates all across the country who are able to thoughtfully articulate what they’re after.”

That fact doesn’t seem to be dissuadung Super PACs, which continue to raise tremendous amounts of money from wealthy individuals, unions and corporations. Indeed, donations are pouring in at record pace, from American Crossroads to Priorities USA and even to Colbert’s Making a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow Super PAC.

The comedian’s political action committee has received donations from more than 165,000 people in the last six months. The money it raises will not simply be used to address political issues, Colbter noted, but also “normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to, luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus.”

All of this, of course, is perfectly legal.

Eric Stern is a freshman in Perison College.

National

American Interventionism and the Tragedy of Foreign Policy

By Noah Remnick

S

even larger number protested the Vietnam War, particularly after 1967. Ronald Reagan’s raid on Grenada, George H.W. Bush’s invasions of Panama and Iraq, Bill Clinton’s belated intervention in the Balkans, Clinton’s failure to quell the Rwandan genocide, the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya in the past decade. In each case, a question presented itself of whether or not to send American forces abroad to accomplish a certain announced (or unannounced) goal relating to national security, economic interests, humanitarian purposes, or terrorism, and in each case the debate between realists and idealists was revived.

American foreign policy realists such as Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft believe that the only genuine motivation for the use of force abroad lies in the defense of an essential national interest, while idealists in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson believe that America’s great power gives it enormous responsibility to stop genocide or other atrocities whenever possible. One indication of the complexity of this debate is that these categories frequently cross party lines, a rarity in American politics. Many consider Woodrow Wilson the quintessential idealist, but the same title could also be given to George W. Bush. Much more often, modern presidents do not fall under one category or the other, but somewhere along the continuum. President Obama exemplifies just that. As an Illinois state legislator with ambitions to run for the U.S. Senate, Obama famously said at an anti-war rally in Chicago in 2002, “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.” Neither a complete idealist nor realist, he protested the Iraq War not on moral or ideological grounds, but on practical considerations. In making that argument, Obama was agreeing with people like Scowcroft, national security advisor to George H.W. Bush. In 2002, Scowcroft famously published an editorial in the Wall Street Journal titled “Don’t Attack Saddam,” which many saw as a tacit message from father to son—a message that enraged the son, and one that he, of course, ignored.

In the post-Vietnam era, all foreign policy decisions were seen through the lens

When Obama entered office in of Vietnam, which served as an example of what not to do.

January 2009, his foreign policy priorities

ince World War I, every American president has had to confront the potential agonies, moral uncertainties, and quagmires of military intervention abroad. Certainly, the price of intervention weighs on Barack Obama even as he pulls out troops from Iraq and vows to do the same from Afghanistan.

He has already spent American energy and resources on a seemingly successful intervention in Libya. But what will he do if the situation in Syria gets out of hand and Bashir al-Assad begins slaughtering people at an even more horrifying rate?

What actions will he take if Iran, defying the sanctions and warnings of the world community, builds a nuclear weapon?

What is his responsibility in the Congo, where countless people have been murdered and rape has become a primary weapon of war? The West has yet to intervene.

Throughout the history of American foreign policy, particularly after World War II, essential strategic and moral questions have circulated concerning the use of American power. Rarely is there a strong oppositional voice when the United States is under imminent threat —self-defense is the prerogative of any state—but beyond such attacks as Pearl Harbor, the rightness of intervention is in the eye of the beholder. Some protested the Korean War in the 1950s and an

Winter 2012

25

National

included get out of Iraq as quickly and responsibly as possible and ratchet down troop levels in Afghanistan without setting off a civil war. The president preferred to see those resources being used domestically and in developing nations like China.

But of course he could not have anticipated everything that would take place in Libya, and that presented Obama with a dilemma: the United States faced a deep recession at home, an overextended military in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the harsh fact that Libya is not an important strategic interest for the United States. It is, after all, a lightly populated, isolated country in northeast Africa that we no longer label a terrorist state. Gaddafi had stopped giving oil money to terrorist states and developing a nuclear weapons program, but in the midst of the Arab Spring uprising he remained a brutal dictator on the verge of slaughtering countless Libyan citizens in Benghazi and elsewhere.

“Many consider Woodrow Wilson the quintessential idealist, but the same title could also be given to George W. Bush. Much more often, modern presidents do not fall under one category or the other, but somewhere along the continuum.”

The United States did not anticipate any of the uprisings of the Arab Spring. For generations, we had adjusted to the idea that the most stagnant part of the political world was the Arab world, and we were very accustomed to dealing with, and even supporting, autocrats in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Then, suddenly, the world turned upside down, and America had to deal with the consequences. The rebel armies that had sprouted up in Libya were disorganized and weak. They didn’t have tanks, nor did they have planes—they had whatever they could get their hands on. Meanwhile, Gaddafi was prepared to lay down the law and kill his own people. Obama, consumed with so many problems, both foreign and domestic, allowed France and Britain to take the lead in building support for a NATO operation in Libya. When an advisor to Obama was quoted anonymously as calling this strategy “leading from behind,” detractors were quick to criticize the President. Another way to describe Obama’s strategy in this particular case could

26

THE POLITIC

have been “tempered idealism.” In the debate over Libya, realists begged America to stay home, fearing unintended consequences and the possibility of a prolonged entrenchment there, while idealists asked how we could allow this massive slaughter to occur. Obama did indeed side with the idealists, but he refused to allow the war to reach of the scale of Iraq.

In the post-Vietnam era, all foreign policy decisions were seen through the lens of Vietnam, which served as an example of what not to do. In a way, Iraq has become Obama’s Vietnam.

In foreign policy, however, the fact that American efforts in Libya have been deemed a success is no guarantee of the capacity to engineer a success in a place like Syria, which, is in an entirely different circumstance. Syrians want their freedom too, but they face a dictator who is prepared to kill his own people and a country that is a client state of Iran, sits on a border with Israel, and has a tacit alliance with the Hezbollah faction in Lebanon. It is hard to see what even an ideal international military coalition would look like. And yet, if we don’t intervene, we could witness the slaughter of thousands of Syrians. Meanwhile, the war in Congo has led to millions of deaths, rapes, and displacements, yet it is unclear what exactly the United States could do about it. This inaction is not uncommon, as we often allow for mass killings in far-away countries with which we have no direct interest.

In the study of intervention, the legacy of the Holocaust looms over all, serving as a constant reminder of the folly of inaction in the face of horror. Occasionally, leaders have apologized in retrospect for their failures to intervene in conflicts around the world. Bill Clinton has called his inaction in Rwanda “one of the two or three greatest regrets of [his] presidency.” Presidents will continue to be forced to make these great decisions, and they will undoubtedly continue to have great regrets.The looming question now seems to be what, if anything, President Obama will regret when he looks back on his foreign policy initiatives. Will he wish he had been more realistic, or more idealistic? Will he be remembered for intervening too much, too little, or for navigating the margins in a manner that met our country’s needs and moral responsibilities? Given the tragic state of global civil war, factionalism, terrorism, poverty, and despotism, it seems virtually impossible for any president to succeed entirely at all times. And that is the great tragedy of foreign policy.

Noah Remnick is a freshman in Saybrook College.

Features

Confronting Corruption in the Developing World

By Josef Goodman, Molly Ma, and Jay Pabarue

T

he penthouse of power is becoming more crowded. The United States may remain the “indispensable nation,” but the unipolar world of the Clinton years is long gone. The next few decades will see the “rise of the rest.” The ascent of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, in particular, with GDP growth rates the envy of the industrialized world, is shifting the sand beneath our feet.

On this march to the new world order, as the BRIC nations develop, gain greater global prestige, and assume more responsibility in the maintenance of peace and prosperity, one hurdle confronts them all: corruption. In a world in which the fate of any one nation is increasingly hinged on the fate of others, corruption in Brazil, Russia, India, and China threatens to derail not just the trajectory of individual nations but the global future.

The Politic goes into the corporate boardroom and government bureau to sniff out the sources, contaminants, and discontents of corruption. Shifty businessmen and bodyguards with large silver briefcases swarm the BRIC nations, but anti–corruption campaigns are gaining momentum.

Governments are clamping down. Citizens are mobilizing.

Bloggers are taking to cyberspace. The four articles in this feature examine the cultural roots, political struggles, and economic damage of corruption. The Politic interviews activists, professors, and NGO directors in order to help us weigh the respective anti-corruption measures of the BRIC nations, how far they have come, and how far they need to go.

Professor emeritus of the University of Brasilia, David Fleischer suggests two forms of corruption that are typical in Brazil. First, there is the embezzlement of funds for direct financial gain. Then there is the illegal appropriation of public funds by politicians and institutions for political purposes. This may include pork barrel projects, cash to finance campaigns, and kickback for political allies. Detouring public funds in such a way might not produce a profit for the politicians but earns them political capital come election season.

To explain the prevalence of corruption in Brazilian politics, scholars go back to the days of Portuguese - colonized Brazil. “The unavoidable truth,” analyst Carlos Eduardo Lins da Silva writes, “is that corruption has been a trademark in

Brazil Transparency International Ranking: 69 out of 178 Many Brazilian children grow up reading the tales of Pedro Malasartes, a prototypical trickster. With deft rhetorical turns, he manipulates foolhardy characters, usually of a higher social status, into doing what he wants. The idea is that shrewd maneuvering can turn a disadvantage into an advantage.

To be sure, the “hero without any character,” as author Roberto DeMatta describes Malasartes in Carnivals, Rogues and Heroes, is rather innocuous in children’s stories. But his incorporation into the political sphere carries a more menacing implication. When Brazilian politicians begin to take after Malasartes, it is the Brazilian people who end up getting swindled.

President Lula speaking at the World Economic Forum on Latin America in 2009.

Winter 2012

27

Features

the Brazilian political system since its earliest origins.” Portuguese officials knew that an assignment to Brazil meant the opportunity of a lifetime, the chance to amass wealth. The Portuguese crown was willing to overlook the misdeeds of its officials so long as the stream of revenue across the Atlantic remained uninterrupted. Powerful donatários were able to manage their captaincies in Brazil with virtual independence.

The result, as Georgetown Professor Joseph Page writes, was that “the administration of the colony became a paradigm… of graft and corruption, as local officials siphoned off public funds and otherwise took financial advantage of their position.”

Despite the establishment of a constitutional democracy after decolonization, corruption continued to permeate Brazilian politics. President Jânio Quadros came into office in 1961, brandishing broom in hand, promising to sweep the streets clean of corruption. He lasted seven months. The military coup of 1964 promised to eliminate not just communism but corruption too. Twenty years later, military rule had little to show for itself. In response to a floundering economy suffering under the weight of rampant corruption and hyperinflation, protesters took to the street demanding a return to civilian rule. One demonstration in Sao Paulo drew a crowd of 1.5 million.

In 1989, after five arduous years of regime change, with a newly drafted democratic charter, the Brazilian people elected President Fernando Collor de Mello. Halfway through his five - year term, a congressional inquiry exposed the first democratically elected president in nearly 30 years as another executive trickster. Once again thousands of frustrated protestors organized to express their indignation. Collor resigned from office in December 1992 before the Senate could vote for his impeachment.

Since the 1992 resignation, Brazil has enjoyed tremendous growth and a consolidation of the democratic process.

In what has come to be called the Mensalão (“Big monthly payment”) scandal, Brazilian newspapers revealed in 2005 that key advisors to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva had accepted bribes from state - owned companies. Despite his implication in the Mensalão, Lula won a second term in the 2006 presidential race. Dr. Matthew Taylor, who has written extensively on Latin American policy, says there is a “tradition of ‘rouba mas faz’ (he steals but gets things done), starting with São Paulo governor Adhemar de Barros in the 1950s and continuing through the present day, under politicians like Paulo Maluf.” Lula survived the scandal because he achieves results.

Yet, “here we are more than five years later,” says Taylor.

“Lula got reelected, sat through his second term, elected his successor, and still there has been no decision by [Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court] either to convict or to absolve the alleged participants” of the Mensalão.

On the whole, however, there is much cause for celebra28

THE POLITIC

tion. A movement emerged in 2008 to put an end to political impunity that culminated in the introduction of the Ficha Limpa (‘Clean Record’) bill, a proposal to bar any politician who has been found guilty of abusing administrative power or any other criminal offense from continued government participation.

Because so few congressmen offered to sponsor the bill, advocates of Ficha Limpa resorted to the little known and rarely implemented ‘popular initiative clause’ of the constitution. The clause demands congress to vote upon a bill that has received signatures from 1% of the Brazilian population.

The Movimento de Combate á Corrupçåo Eleitoral (MCCE), an umbrella group comprised of over 40 NGOs and other organizations that helped design the legislation, gathered more than 1.9 million signatures in favor of Ficha Limpa. Another 3 million more registered in support online. The petition was sent to the National Congress and in June 2010, President Lula signed the bill into law.

Luciano Santos, a lawyer at the helm of the Ficha Limpa campaign, said that when politicians saw the massive popular support behind the bill, lawmakers felt pressure to approve the law. Taylor is heartened by the public’s push to clean up politics. “The fact that civil society is leading the drive for change suggests an important source of reform that can drive continuous improvements in coming years, whether or not the ‘political class’ is on board.”

Alongside increased civil activity, Taylor points to the resilience of the 1988 constitution and the success of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lulu’s immediate predecessor, and the Real Plan, a set of measures taken to stabilize the Brazilian economy that included the privatization of public sectors, in shoring up once rickety political and economic structures. Stabilization will continue to make the fight against corruption easier. “There is of course much that remains to be done, especially to accelerate the inefficient prosecution of corruption cases in the courts. But the fact of the matter is that it is a lot easier to be transparent and fight corruption when inflation is running at 6% a year than when it is 3,000% a year.”

As problems of hyperinflation, poverty, and education are addressed, Taylor predicts “moral questions such as corruption will rise to the forefront. The evidence seems fairly strong that Brazil is moving in this direction.” The fight against dirty politics is self-perpetuating - every success against corruption moves corrupt officials out of the government, thereby making anti-corruption reform easier to pass. Cleaning up politics “is not something that happens overnight, and it will be highly dependent on the future path of Brazil’s economy and democracy,” Taylor says. But the recent triumph of the Ficha Limpa movement suggests that Brazilians who are fed up with corruption may have a real opportunity to make changes in the coming years.

Features

Russia

gary and the Czech Republic, annual growth would rise by percentages point.

Transparency International Ranking: 154 out of 178

Any attempts to curb corruption have failed to liftoff.

Yelena Panfilova, director of the Moscow office of Transpar- Current Prime Minister and former President Vladimir Putin, ency International, didn’t react well to her country’s ranking mockingly hailed by The Economist as Russia’s “Humiliator in the 2010 Transparency International Report. “How can a – in – Chief,” had promised to tame the Russian bear and escountry claiming to be a world leader be in such a position? tablish a “dictatorship of law.” His successor, current President Dmitry Medvedev, established the Anti – Corruption Council.

It’s a situation of national shame.”

The stench of corruption is everywhere and everyone Early into his presidency, Medvedev penned an open letter has a story to tell. Young men avoid conscription with cash. to the Russian people under the headline “Forward Russia!”

Students buy admissions into the top universities. Officers begging the question: “Should we continue to drag into the in the army hire troops out as day laborers. Developers and future our primitive raw - materials economy, endemic corcontractors require licenses to build, and every license needs ruption, and inveterate habit of relying on the state, foreign a bribe. In 2005, the latest year for estimations, bribery and countries or some all-powerful doctrine to solve our problems fraud amounted to over $316 billion, more than the entire -- on anyone except ourselves?” He has called on Russians to e-mail the Kremlin with suggestions on how to purge the country’s federal budget.

The list goes on. Dozens of coal miners have died country’s Augean stables. The public, however, unimpressed where pit owners neglected safety rules to maximize profits. by his gestures and absence of any real improvement, is growBombers have bribed their way through the gate and crashed ing more impatient. A recent poll showed that 71 percent of airplanes to the ground. Since 2000, 17 journalists have been respondents feel government efforts to fight corruption will killed. More than three quarters of Russians say corruption amount to little.

Whence will reform and purification come if not from is a major problem and is worse than it was 10 years ago.

Corruption has meant international shame and death for too the Kremlin? One blogger, a 34 – year - old real estate lawmany. It spells future instability and poor economic prospects. yer by training, has taken it upon himself to do what Putin The country has sailed along with relatively high GDP growth and Medvedev will not. Aleksei Navalny is on a crusade to over the past decade, thanks in large part to its exportation expose the extortion of big state owned energy companies. of natural gas and oil. The country’s Central Bank holds over His website, Navalny.ru, posts scoops on the misconduct of $500 billion in reserves. There is a growing consensus among companies such Transneft and Gazprom and has attracted economists, however, that corruption is becoming increasingly millions of visitors. cumbersome to growth and development. Malfeasance has As The New York Times reported in March 2011: “Mr. scared away potential foreign investors and their checkbooks. Navalny, whose fame and unabashed political ambitions are Studies have shown that if Russia were to reduce corruption surely helped by his blue-eyed good looks and acidic sense to the levels of its neighboring countries like Poland, Hun- of humor, has clearly touched a nerve in Russian society. His blog appeals to Russians who wonder: if the country’s vast oil wealth is not trickling down to the public, where is it going?” According to Nikolai Petrov, a fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center, Navalny’s celebrity “is growing almost as quickly as that of Wiki Leaks founder Julian Assange.”

Navalny got his start in 2007. Exercising his rights as a minority stockholder, he sued Russian companies to disclose their accounting documents. He then published the disclosures on a LiveJournal blog. Within months he had gained a following and launched Navalny.ru in 2010, relying upon the undercover and discrete help of bankers and financial analysts to examine company accounting documents.

The recent stir over Transneft’s pipeline construction that Navalny uncovered has generated Aleksei Navalny is on a crusade to expose the extortion of big state owned interest not just from the public and a few brave energy companies. bankers, but even from the Prime Minister. Putin Winter 2012

29

Features

has taken Navalny’s postings on Transneft seriously enough ExxonMobil. Financial Mismanagement and shady handling to call for an investigation, which is still ongoing. This step hamstring the company’s ability to lure both potential inveshas done little to appease Navalny and contain his righteous tors and win big contracts. fury. The blogger has expanded his operations to exposing The anti - corruption campaign is gathering pace. Nagovernment impropriety. His new website RosPil.info sheds valny’s website increases its membership by over 10% every light on government procurement process and even asks for month. NGOs, like Panfilova Transparency International Rusinput from his online audience. sia, have succeeded in pushing the Kremlin to take stronger

Navalny has sworn to continue to fight despite threats action. Companies, like TNK – BP, are self – regulating in and possibility of arrest. He wouldn’t be the first to find him- order to compete better globally. Bankers and financial anaself behind bars for activism. Attorney Sergei Magnitsky was lysts, like those supporting Navalny and investing the death of arrested in 2008 after accusing officials in the Interior Ministry Magnitsky, are doing their part to fight corruption. And yet, of falsifying tax documents to steal $230 million from the Russia still has still so far to go, many more miles to run in state. He died in custody in November 2009. William Browder, the marathon. Putin and Medvedev have gone after the small an American investor who ran Hermitage Capital Manage- fishes, but people involved in the biggest bribery scandals are ment, the investment fund Magnitsky had worked at before also the ones who seem best at avoiding prosecution. To be his arrest, conducted a private investigation into the death of truly effective, anti - corruption efforts must start at the top. the Russian lawyer. The report found that he had been denied Such will be the task facing Putin next year when he returns medical attention in prison and gruesomely beaten. “The to the presidency. Don’t hold your breath.

Russian government knows exactly who tortured and killed Sergei Magnitsky, as well as who stole $230 million, but has India refused to investigate and prosecute them,” the investigation Transparency International Ranking: 87 out of 178 concluded.

Daring individuals like Navalny and Magnitsky are not Shobila Kali, the director of anti - corruption organizaalone among anti – corruption activists. Moscow based think tion 5th Pillar, traces back the corruption in India today to – tank Indem Foundation has been monitoring and publishing independence from the British Empire in 1947. Following reports on corruption since 1996. The non – governmental decolonization, government officials retained extensive rights organization, the Center for Anti-corruption Research and but saw their salaries cut. Many turned to illegal and often Initiative Transparency International Russia, has been work- coercive means to protect their income. ing for over a decade toward greater transparency. Yelena Monika Halan, editor of LiveMint.com and a Yale World Panfilova, the NGOs founder and director, even finds reason Fellow, believes the structure of India’s former socialist based to hope, pointing to Moscow’s decision to join the OECD’s economy explains the ubiquity of fraud and extortion. Only a Anti - Bribery Convention, action Panfilova personally pushed for.

Some businesses, like the joint venture of TNK BP, Russia’s third largest oil producer, have taken it upon themselves to purge their accounting books of craft and chicanery. The company recently confirmed 365 cases of alleged corruption and violations identified by a security staff. This may be a move in part to repair the damaged public image caused by the Deepwater Horizon accident.

The company also sees the economic sense in going after ‘Dirty Harry.’ BP recently lost a The LokPal Bill establishes an independent ombudsman body called the Lokpal (Sanskrit for bid worth billions on a project “protector of the people”). in the Russian Artic to its rival 30

THE POLITIC

Features

few individuals in the government had control over production and distribution. These officials exercised much power within their districts to take advantage of the lack of oversight for profit. These practices survived India’s transition from socialism to capitalism in the last decades of the 20th century.

Navneet Jawanda, biologist and researcher at the Yale School of Medicine and a member of the citizen’s movement India Against Corruption, considers corruption so embedded in society that it has made young generations of Indians numb, even indifferent. Arvind Panagariya, professor of Indian Political Economy at Columbia University and former Chief Economist at the Asian Development Bank, meanwhile, sees

“One particularly creative tactic of the 5th Pillar operation is the ‘zerorupee note (ZRN),’ a currency like slip printed with the words ‘I will neither accept nor bribe.’” buds of progress and reason to hope. He points to the Right to Information Act of 2005. Under this act, any citizen may request information from a public authority that is required to reply within thirty days. The law, says Panagariya, has galvanized the anti – corruption movement in the country.

One of the most visible leaders of the campaign against corruption is Anne Hazare. He is pressing for the passage of the LokPal Bill to establish an independent ombudsman body called the Lokpal (Sanskrit for “protector of the people”). It would be empowered to register and investigate complaints of corruption against politicians and bureaucrats without prior government approval.

Hazare and his hunger strikes have effectively captured the attention of millions of citizens and generated interest from the global community. Sara Shneiderman, an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Yale who teaches “Contemporary South Asia,” accredits the effectiveness of Halan’s message to the adoption of Mahatma Gandhi’s own method.

Hunger strikes focus international attention upon the individual as the symbol of the common man’s grievances against the system, creating an embarrassing situation for the central government. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has stated that the bill will be re - introduced in the 2011 monsoon session of Parliament.

While legislative steps are necessary, lasting reform lies in changing the attitudes of everyday people. According to the director of 5th Pillar, “We see awareness campaigns as a way to reduce citizen apathy to corruption and hence educate the public with ways to combat corruption.” The organization conducts educational campaigns in more than nine hundred schools and colleges across the country. One particularly

creative tactic of the 5th Pillar operation is the “zero-rupee note (ZRN),” a currency - like slip printed with the words “I will neither accept nor bribe.” Citizens are encouraged to hand public officials the ZRN as a political statement. So far, over 1.5 million of these notes have been distributed. Kali says that rather than resort to bribery, many citizens have presented the notes to officials and “have found to their pleasant surprise that the erstwhile corrupt official yields instantaneously to their request without the bribe.”

Alongside the efforts of NGOs, new technologies, such as online social media and mobile phones, are helping to alter cultural perceptions towards corruption. They allow the involvement of individuals who may otherwise not feel comfortable participating in social movements, says Shneiderman.

One example is the website ipaidabribe.com, where individuals can report acts of bribery and corruption anonymously, and “tell their story” to the masses. There have been over 14,000 posts so far.

Professor Panagariya of Columbia University argues that economic reform, not political restructuring or social awareness, is the most important component in fighting corruption.

He is not very confident that the movement of Anna Hazare to establish the ombudsman, the “super cop” in his words, would be an effective or long - lasting solution. “What if the super cop is corrupt?” Panagariya asks. Corruption of authority has happened before in the judiciary and the police. India needs economic regulatory overhaul to restrict the scope of corruption. Still other experts, like Navneet Jawanda of India Against Corruption, propose campaign finance reform to limit a politician’s incentive to accept bribes during elections.

India’s greatest strength moving forward is its democratic institutions that provide the framework and legal means to address grievances and pass necessary reform. The world’s largest democracy allows for NGOs and free press. Contrast this with the repressed political environment of China, where the options and opportunities are severely limited.

China Transparency International Ranking: 78 out of 178 In the world’s most populous country, problems of corruption are rooted in the culture of guanxi that nurtures networks of relationships, deep state involvement in the economy, the control of the Chinese Communist Party. Though Beijing recognizes the importance of cleaning up corruption under the scrutiny of the international community and domestic pressures at home, the situation does not seem to be improving in the near term.

In Chinese society, there exists a blurry line between the traditional notion of guanxi and corruption. According to Professor Thomas Gold, former Director of the Berkeley China Initiative and Chair of the Center for Chinese Studies, the first problem lies in determining what actions are Winter 2012

31

Features

considered corruption. “What is defined as corruption in the West may not be considered corruption in China,” he explains. China has such a large population and very limited resources, that sometimes, for one to get a resume in the door, or a doctor’s appointment, or an article published in a journal, one must establish connections with key individuals. Guanxi involves doing favors and giving money and gifts to create and cultivate these relationships. Gold states that for many officials, the line between guanxi and corruption is whether one gets caught. China’s highly personalized system of rule of law enables many powerful actors to dodge legal ramifications. According to Time Magazine, 99% of corrupt officials escape punishment, and those individuals who are charged with a crime are simply considered the unlucky ones.

Other causes of the endemic corruption in Chinese society are heavily related to state involvement in the economy.

Though China has liberalized its economy since the reforms of Deng Xiaoping, many sectors of the economy, such as energy, transportation, natural resources, finance, and telecommunications remain in state control. Easy access provides opportunities too tempting to ignore. Mayling Birney, an Assistant Professor at the London School of Economics and

In the financial sector, where all four of the largest banks are state - owned, government officials “often heavily influence and interfere with the decisions over who receives bank loans.

32

THE POLITIC

Political Science, offers one example. In the financial sector, where all four of the biggest banks are state - owned, government officials “often heavily influence and interfere with the decisions over who receives bank loans.” Lynn T. White, professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton, provides another typical form of corruption involving lo-

“What is defined as corruption in the West may not be considered corruption in China.” cal officials who sell off farmland for factory development, infrastructure projects, and real estate. While some of the profits from the sales may go into local development, much of the money is embezzled. The farmers, who lose their land at below market rates, are the ultimate losers.

The central government has recognized that it must address the growing issue of corruption. Its 2010 white paper on anti - corruption “China’s Efforts to Combat Corruption and Build a Clean Government” states: “It is the firm stance of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government to combat corruption and build a clean government.”

Empty words. Professor Anthony Saich, the Director of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard, does not see the lack of government oversight or poor implementation of corruption laws changing anytime soon.

High profile trials and executions for the few corrupt officials caught are only superficial gestures. China may be the world leader in capital punishment for corruption, with 90% of the all world cases reports Time Magazine. There even appears to be popular demand for these trials. Executions, however, remain a cosmetic approach without the necessary structural fixes.

Any centralized attempts of structural fixes have been stifled at the local level. Provincial officials have too much flexibility and discretion. Birney believes that Beijing will continue to struggle to deter corruption without changing the political system itself.

The central government is betting on continued economic prosperity to distract people and buy time. The protests continue to amass. Millions of citizens, undeterred by the lack of legal options, are taking to the streets. A recent citizen protest in Dalian, a northeastern city, was described as “one of the largest demonstrations since Tiananmen Square.” As growth slows and awareness grows, the central government has a potential powder keg on its hands.

Josef Goodman is a sophomore in Morse College.

Molly Ma is a junior in Timothy Dwight College.

Jay Pabarue is a sophomore in Silliman College.

The Arctic: A NATO-Russia Showdown?

International

By Sun Woo Ryoo “There are two kinds of Arctic problems, the imaginary and the real. Of the two, the imaginary are the most real.”

-Vilhjalmur Stefansson, “The Arctic in Fact and Fable”

A

s the frigid Arctic shows signs of thawing, tensions reminiscent of the Cold War are building in the High North. In 2007, Russian submersibles dropped a titanium capsule containing a Russian flag on the North Pole seabed.

In response, Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay stated, “This isn’t the fifteenth century. You can’t go around the world and just plant flags and say ‘We’re claiming this territory.’”

In August 2011, the Canadian military launched an exercise called Operation Nanook 11 which deployed over 1000 troops.

Foreign forces from NATO also participated. In that same year, Russia announced it would create two specialist brigades to be stationed in the Arctic. Such militarization of the Arctic had already occurred during the Cold War, but in a different manner and with different motives; because of its unyielding climate, the Arctic had served as a buffer zone between the Communist bloc and the Free World. While very few ground

troops and naval units were deployed in the Arctic at that time, radar stations for detecting incoming ICBMs (most famously the series of radar stations that formed the Distant Early Warning Line “DEW Line”) were installed. Arctic policy focused on deterrence of nuclear annihilation for many nations during the Cold War. Today, these countries consider the Arctic the final frontier of mankind, with great economic potential as a source of fossil fuels and mineral resources and as an alternative shipping route. However, the Arctic is a long way from development, and because of this, a NATO versus Russia confrontation in the Arctic is unlikely to occur. Furthermore, the Arctic will not remain the exclusive possession of circumpolar nations; challenges in developing the High North will ensure the participation of other nations. What is most likely to emerge is a multilateral relationship among circumpolar states and other interested nations like the United Kingdom, France, China, Japan, and Germany.

A Potential Economic Bonanza

A map delineating Russian claims in the Arctic.

There is a reason why countries around the world, especially circumpolar nations, are showing great interest in the Arctic these days.

The High North, if adequately developed, will entail immense economic value. The wealth of the Arctic lies in its fossil fuel deposits, yet-tobe-mined mineral resources, and potential as an alternative to the traditional shipping routes that pass through the Panama and Suez canals. The amount of crude oil and natural gas that remains untapped in the Arctic is enormous. According to the United States Geological Survey, approximately 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered gas and 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil are deposited in the Arctic Circle. This fact combined with the projection of continued high gas and oil prices in the future makes the Arctic a potential Gold Rush zone.

The mineral resource deposits of the Arctic also represent tremendous wealth. Its frozen landmass, especially the Kola Peninsula of the Russian Federation, contains vast amounts of Winter 2012

33

International

inorganic riches including the world’s second largest deposit of rare earth metals, bested only by China. The Canadian North is the world’s third largest producer of naturally formed diamonds, and Alaska is the world’s largest producer of zinc.

In addition, the Arctic as a whole contains vast amounts of copper, iron, nickel, cobalt, titanium, uranium, ceramic raw materials, mica, and precious stones. As with oil and gas, the price of industrial commodities is rising and will continue to do so in the future. The mineral deposits of the Arctic will be an economic bonanza for any country that can unearth it.

Finally, the shipping lanes that pass through the Arctic have received attention at least since the fifteenth century.

There are two main shipping lanes in the Arctic: the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route. The Northwest Passage runs near the Canadian shoreline; the Northern Sea Route passes through Russian waters. These routes have seen limited use in the past because they were usually closed off by sea ice. Now, with the thawing of the Arctic, these routes could become much more navigable. These two sea lanes could potentially bring significant reductions in shipping costs for logistics corporations. The Northwest Passage has the potential to cut 11,000 kilometers off the Europe-to-Asia route through the Panama Canal, and the Northern Sea Route could cut up to 12,920 kilometers off the Asia-to-Europe route through the Suez canal. With the rise in fuel prices, every bit of distance saved translates into profit. Because the High North has great economic potential in terms of untapped fuel, mineral deposits, and transport lanes, it is not strange that many nations, especially circumpolar countries, are fighting for legal rights in the Arctic. These battles focus on whether these routes are part of the internal waters of Canada or Russia, or are international straits

Cold Realities of Far North Development However, prospects of imminent development of the Arctic are illusory at best. The current legal battle over ownership of Arctic waters is an “imaginary” issue, because the “real” problem of the Far North is that it will not be developed for a significant period of time. A major impediment to the development of the Arctic is sea ice. While sea ice in the Far North is receding at an accelerating rate, it will continue to impede the development of the Arctic for a substantial period of time. Most models of Arctic sea ice melting estimate that the Arctic Ocean will not be free of sea ice until the 2030s.

Until then, sea ice will continue to block Arctic development.

Other issues exist, but their impact on the exploitation of the Far North can be classified into legal, technological, infrastructural, and economic obstacles, which cannot even begin to be addressed until the thawing of sea ice is complete and development well underway.

34

THE POLITIC

Mining: Fossil Fuels and Mineral Resources Many legal issues trouble the mining of fossil fuels and mineral resources in the Arctic. In the Far North, fossil fuels are located on continental shelves and seabeds in the Arctic Ocean. Ongoing legal disputes between countries over territory in the High North arise from ambiguous knowledge of Arctic continental shelves. Current international legislation states that a country’s claim to resources outside its internal waters and EEZs (Exclusive Economic Zones) must be supported by scientific proof that a particular underwater geographic feature is a continuation of its continental shelves.

Circumpolar nations are sending scientific expeditions to support their claims. The science has proven inconclusive so far; for example, Canada, Russia, and Denmark all have sent scientific expeditions to prove that the Lomonosov Ridge is an extension of their respective continental shelves (most notably the Arktika 2007 expedition, during which Russian scientists dropped their flag on the North Pole seabed). A neutral expedition would be ideal, but is practically impossible in the near future: only nations with icebreakers can conduct scientific expeditions in the Arctic due to sea ice, and icebreakers mostly belong to circumpolar countries. Until disputes over territory have been settled, the High North will not be open for development. Unlike fossil fuels, minerals in the Arctic are land-based. These resources are free from legal issues surrounding continental shelves, but are subject to territorial claims by native populations and environmental laws.

Especially in North America, many places are still inhabited by native tribes, who have certain rights (i.e. hunting wildlife in their territory) over the land. Mineral mining is destructive and undermines the rights of these tribes. Destructive mining also violates environmental laws, especially those regarding protected species. A good example of both cases is the Arctic Refuge drilling controversy. Although this example involves oil, it is pertinent to mineral mining because it takes place on land. Native rights and environmental legislation concerning the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge have so far barred drilling entirely, an outcome that will be repeated in many Artic lands.

Current technology precludes immediate Arctic mining.

Drilling for fossil fuels in the Arctic requires mining over ice, because large areas of the Arctic freeze in winter. Currently two technologies exist for drilling over ice. The first method is used in the Caspian Sea, whose northern part freezes during the winter, and it involves constructing artificial islands. This method cannot be used in the Arctic because the northern Caspian sea is only fifteen feet deep, whereas the continental shelves and seabeds of the Arctic are several thousand feet underwater. The second method uses submersible drilling platforms, which dive when sea ice forms. This technology is being tested in the North Sea. It is extremely expensive,

International

however, and is not a practical solution in the near future for massive fossil fuel excavation in the Arctic. Until the High North becomes ice-free even in winter, or until a major technological breakthrough is made in submersible drilling platform technology, Arctic development will proceed slowly.

Mineral mining faces technological challenges from Arctic thawing itself. When the ground thaws, it becomes hydrated.

Drilling, which requires solid ground, becomes difficult. New drilling equipment is needed to mine minerals under these conditions. And for non-drilling technology (i.e. chemical methods), soil pollution proves a salient problem. Advances in drilling technology and/or chemical mining methods are needed for Arctic mineral exploitation.

The Arctic lacks infrastructure for supporting large-scale mining. Both fossil energy and mineral mining will require a great deal of labor. Safety apparatuses (including emergency rescue teams) and communities must be built near the drilling sites. Roads, railroads, and harbors will need to be created to transport the mining products to markets. The thawing of the permafrost presents additional disadvantages, as the infrastructure will need to withstand the malleable ground. This burden could fall on the government (as with the Soviet era closed cities) or on corporations (as with the company towns of North America). However, in the isolated and frigid Far North, this will prove to be a costly and protracted task.

Shipping Lanes The Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route traverse Canadian and Russian territorial waters, respectively. Until treaties are signed that designate the legal obligations and rights of the nations through which the shipping lanes pass and the vessels that pass through these routes, using the shipping lanes will be difficult. The routes can be vital strategic assets to the nations that possess them: the Northern Sea Route has occasionally been used by the Soviet Navy to link

their Northern and Pacific fleets. Such strategic and military interests may prolong the negotiation process for these treaties. Until the legal boundaries are clarified, the lanes will not be a major absorber of world shipping traffic.

When the Arctic Ocean is free of ice all year round in the 2030s, sea ice will not be a problem, but until then, it will be a major prohibiting factor for the development of shipping lanes. Obviously it is not prudent to open the lanes when they are entirely encapsulated in sea ice, but they can be opened when coverage is only partial. In this case, ships that pass through the shipping lanes will need to have some icebreaking capability; vessels without such an ability risk the danger of being trapped or sunk. Escorting every ship through the sea routes with icebreakers is not economically viable. Either a new class of ships with basic icebreaking abilities will have to be built to take advantage of these lanes, or current ships will have to be retrofitted. Once again, this will require new technology, though such innovation may be easier to pull off than other challenges set out in this article.

If the Arctic sea routes are to function on a commercial scale, supporting infrastructure needs to be established. Important components of infrastructure include icebreaker fleets and vessel monitoring systems. Currently, the icebreaker fleets of the circumpolar nations are scant and outdated. Finland’s most powerful icebreakers, Urho and Sisu, are 35 years old.

The US icebreaker fleet has three vessels, of which only one is modern. Such fleets will not be able to accommodate the heavy traffic of commercial sea routes. Vessel monitoring systems are necessary for all modern sea routes — no ship that travels along major shipping lanes should go without being monitored. However, these systems are very expensive, and many developing nations that need vessel monitoring systems go without simply because they cannot afford them.

Enlarging and modernizing icebreaker fleets and constructing vessel monitoring systems in the Arctic will take substantial time and money, and will not be done in the near future.

The possibility of accidents in the Arctic will prevent vessels from entering the High North. While savings in transportation costs associated with using the Arctic sea routes are substantial, they pale in comparison to the losses incurred when a vessel is damaged at sea. Accidents will remain likely until all of the ice in the Arctic melts, mainly due to icebergs.

The real possibility of accidents and the murky legal framework of the Arctic present a nightmare scenario for any entity considering the use of these shipping lanes. At present, such dangers far outweigh the benefits in shipping costs reductions, and until the legal responsibilities of the Arctic are clearly set out or the danger of icebergs are reduced, the shipping lanes of the Far North will not be fit for business.

The Russian Barents Sea, home to RusHydro’s tidal complex.

Winter 2012

35

International

Many Poles in the North?

The development of the Arctic will not occur anytime soon.

Legal, technological, infrastructural, and economic factors all impede the exploitation of the Far North’s resources. Because Arctic development is not imminent, nations will view the High North from a more flexible security standpoint. The protracted development of the Arctic will also ensure that other nations have time to catch up. Non-circumpolar nations that have lesser capability of exploiting the Arctic will be able to join in development since they will have enough time to develop their assets. Circumpolar nations will wish to accelerate the exploitation of the Arctic, and will outsource certain technological and infrastructural tasks to these noncircumpolar states. As a result, a multilateral relationship, as opposed to a bipolar NATO versus Russia type of conflict, will arise in the Arctic.

obtain permanent observer status on the Arctic Council.

The Danish intend to use China as a counterweight to other circumpolar countries, including the United States. The longterm security interests of the countries are not confined to a NATO versus Russia paradigm, and so far nations are acting with such pliability.

Non-Circumpolar Nations Play Catch-Up Because the Far North will not be exploited anytime soon, non-circumpolar nations with significant interests in the Arctic can and will expand their capacity to develop the High North.

Countries that are permanent and ad-hoc observers on the Arctic Council have a great interest in the Arctic, but some do not have the polar capabilities that circumpolar states enjoy.

For example, as an industrial power, Germany has interests in the fossil fuels of the Arctic. Its icebreaker fleet, however, is very small. Given that the Arctic will not be free of ice until at least the 2030s, and an icebreaker takes only 8 to 10 years to build, states like Germany will have time to build their fleets.

Outsourcing Arctic Development The circumpolar states face a daunting task in exploiting the Arctic. Circumpolar countries can accelerate development of the Arctic by outsourcing certain work to non-circumpolar states. In 2011, the Korean Gas Corporation of South Korea bought 20% of the ownership of the Umiak SDL 131 gas field in the Mackenzie Valley Delta, and is considering building a terminal in Cape Bathurst. NATO is already engaged in dialogue with countries including China, Japan, South Korea, and India due to their great industrial potential. Such outsourcing will continue into the future, and will bring the presence of non-Arctic states to the Far North.

The signpost at the Arctic Circle on Grimsey Island.

A Flexible Outlook on Security Interests Because Arctic development is not happening anytime soon, circumpolar nations, the main players in the exploitation of the Far North, have far more space to maneuver in terms of security. DĂŠtente arose in the last century when states realized that the Cold War would go on for an indefinite period of time. Something similar may happen among the circumpolar nations, and signs are already showing that it will be the case.

Despite the solidarity shown in Operation Nanook, the United States and Canada have competing claims for continental shelf and seabed rights north of Alaska. Denmark has also broken out of the NATO monolith by pushing for the Chinese to 36

THE POLITIC

Despite current tensions and interests, the Arctic will remained closed for development for a significant period of time, unless the ice melts unexpectedly rapidly or there are a series of major economic and technological breakthroughs.

Because of the time needed for exploitation of the Far North, Arctic states will have a more flexible viewpoint on High North security and will act relatively free of the NATO versus Russia conflict paradigm. Non-Arctic states without polar capabilities but interest in the High North will have time to develop their capacities. Outsourcing of technological and infrastructural tasks of Arctic development will invite noncircumpolar nations into Far North exploitation. As a result, instead of an immediate bipolar confrontation reminiscent of the Cold War, a slowly evolving multipolar relationship amongst many nations will arise in the North Pole.

Sun Woo Ryoo is a freshman in Morse College.

Will South Sudan Survive?

International

By Meredith Potter

S

ix years ago, the civil war that ravaged Sudan from 1983 to 2005 came to an end. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended the conflict, provided the people of southern Sudan an opportunity to vote in a referendum scheduled for January 2011; that referendum would decide whether southern Sudan ought to be independent from its northern counterpart. Last January, 99 percent of southerners voted to secede. On July 9, 2011, South Sudan became the newest sovereign nation in the world.

The world has watched South Sudan with trepidation.

Before July, all of Sudan was governed by the northern city of Khartoum, so South Sudan has no pre-existing political institutions. Most of its eight million people are impoverished, surviving on less than one dollar a day, and only fifteen percent of them are literate. Though it boasts lucrative oil reserves, it lacks the infrastructure necessary for refining and exporting its oil; before the country became two, northerners handled those tasks.

South Sudan depends on oil revenue for 98 percent of its national budget. In Unity State, where South Sudan drills most of its oil, production has declined by 25 percent since July. Oil workers have become sparse because northerners fled southern oilfields when South Sudan declared its independence.

Today, roughly 75 percent of Sudanese oil fields lie in Southern Sudan, but their pipelines flow north to ports there.

Because Sudan refines and exports the oil collected in Southern Sudan, the two countries are dependent on one another.

John Daly of the Jamestown Foundation says, “like Siamese twins, Sudan and South Sudan need each other” to survive.

The two countries have yet to agree on how to share their oil wealth. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement stipulates that northern and southern Sudan will split oil revenues equally, but Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for his atrocities in Darfur, controls the pipelines that run to the Indian Ocean coastline.

So far, he has been unwilling to compromise with South Sudan.

In November, the South Sudanese government seized Sudan’s share of southern oil production and announced its intention to construct a new pipeline that will not traverse Sudanese territory. South Sudan divested Sudapest, Sudan’s oil company, of its shares in South Sudan’s oilfields, transferring those shares to Nilepet, South Sudan’s state-owned oil company. Khartoum, it seems, will have no hand in managing South Sudan’s natural resources.

South Sudan’s decisions will negatively affect ongoing negotiations, which seek to benefit both countries by split-

ting oil revenues ‘fairly.’ Though South Sudan claims that their divestment of Sudapest was implicit in pre-secession negotiations, Sudanese officials expected any divestment to be discussed during negotiations. The African Union is facilitating negotiations as part of a broader effort to address grievances about oil, as well as boundaries and demarcation, that have been voiced by both countries.

Negotiations are failing. A new round of talks sponsored by the African Union and mediated by former South African President Thabo Mbeki has not commenced as scheduled; because South Sudan’s obstruction of northern efforts to capitalize on oil, Mbeki-led negotiations may not occur at all.

Sudan and South Sudan are unlikely to resolve escalating oil-related tensions, which will impede the efforts of both nations to stabilize their economies. In addition to settling the splitting of oil revenue, Sudan and South Sudan must divide and pay their $35 billion debt, much of which they owe to the United States. Both countries say they plan to circulate new currencies, which will complicate their economic rebuilding efforts.

“A Crude Awakening,” a 2006 documentary by Basil Gelpke and Raymond McCormack about the realities of oil, calls it “black blood,” but in Sudan and South Sudan, the world is likely to witness the spilling of more red blood before oil-related disagreements are to be resolved. Neither country is willing to compromise, but both are hopelessly invested in capitalizing on oil; both economies are dependent on it.

Both countries are politically unstable, so they may resort to violence, which veterans of the two-decade Sudanese civil war know all too well.

Though South Sudan plans to construct new pipelines, Adelaide Schwartz, an analyst at Stratfor, a private intelligence company in Austin, Texas, calls such infrastructure “a literal pipe dream,” given that it would take years to construct new pipelines. It would also require money South Sudan simply does not have.

Despite these considerations, it would be a mistake to underestimate South Sudan’s determination to control its own destiny, including its oil. Though the country is still struggling to define itself, and though some of its citizens have competing identities and interests, the South Sudanese people are united in their opposition to the north. Unfortunately, their demonization of the north will continue to prevent the African Union from making any progress toward an oil settlement.

Meredith Potter is a junior in Saybrook College.

Winter 2012

37

International

Activism and Optimism: The Syrian Uprising An Interview with Karam Nachar

By Justin Schuster Karam Nachar is a PhD candidate at Princeton University. His research and writing focuses on the cultural and political history of the Levant in the twentieth century.

Raised in Aleppo, Mr. Nachar has close connections to the Syrian uprising and serves as a leading figure in organizing opposition efforts from the diaspora. From raising funds to organizing Facebook pages, he has been instrumental in leading the expatriate community and assisting his fellow countrymen. Before Princeton, Mr. Nachar received his BA from the American University of Beirut and his masters at Oxford.

The Politic: I was hoping that you could share your experiences and insights regarding the situation in Syria.

KN: Usually when I begin talking about what’s happening in Syria I’d say that the missing story in the mainstream media is the prehistory of the Syrian revolution.

When Bashar Assad took over in the year 2000, there was something called the Damascus Spring. This movement comprised many intellectuals, writers, cultural producers, or just public figures – people who used to be involved in politics and wanted to return to political activism now that there was a reformist president in power rather than his father. There was this phenomenon of “salons” where people discussed the future of the country. At that point the discussion was very intellectually heavy and about establishing a new social contract between state and society. In hindsight, realizing that there were other pockets of activism among average Syrians, the Damascus Spring was very elite driven, in Damascus primarily but also in Homs, Aleppo and other cities in the country. My parents, who both come from upper middle class backgrounds with interests in politics, decided to turn our house in 2000 into a salon.

In the first few months this was very reticent. Conversation shied away from the extremely sensitive topics like political succession and started with cultural discussions like women in Syria or religion in Syria. Later, it evolved into political activism, and this led to the Damascus Declaration in 2005. The Damascus Declaration was the biggest umbrella of opposition groups in Syria in the first five years of the last decade. This got momentum in 2005 when the Syrians were being pushed by the international community to pull out of Lebanon. A lot of observers anticipated that the regime inside of the country was going to collapse so the Damascus Declaration reached the pinnacle of its power in 2005. They made this huge statement along with Lebanese intellectuals calling for the immediate withdrawal of the Syrian army, which

38

THE POLITIC

triggered a huge crackdown.

After 2005 the Spring was definitely over. The old ways of Assad’s father were back. The people who were still trying to be active in Damascus were all put in jail. There was a travel ban, and so my parents were not allowed to leave the country since then. Within this there were three different discourses that were talking about bringing back democracy.

There were lefty liberal intellectuals who are now also in the forefront of what’s happening in Syria, especially in Damascus and in certain circles in Homs and Latakia.

There was another more Islamic group. They’ve worked on marrying the two languages of Islam and non-violence and how to basically develop a type of moderate Islamic nonviolent kind of resistance to authoritarian regimes in the Arab world. The more I learn about these people the more astonished I am of how humanistic and how seriously committed they are to peaceful and democratic means of regime change and democratic struggle.

The third camp, which my parents would be closest to, comprises the old families of the country. These people led the struggle against the French in the 20s, 30s and 40s, and then were in power in the 50s. Then they were completely driven aside by the rise of the Baath party and the Syrian military who took over in 1963. This camp is kind of nostalgic, liberal, democratic, slightly conservative in the social sense, and very family based.

So you have these three scripts that came together, and then there is the story that everyone knows. The 15 students from Daraa who wrote on the walls of the school “people want to bring down the regime” got arrested and tortured.

As a result of the traditional structure of society in southern Syria and a break in the wall of fear because of Egypt and Tunisia, people decided to go to the streets.

At that point there was a convergence. Activists who were close to the lefty intellectuals in Damascus were organizing small demonstrations calling first for support for Libyans,

International

Tunisians and Egyptians, but then also freedom in Syria. Then there was the mass base southern Syrian turmoil. These two groups converged and the movement picked up. Small committees were being formed to be in charge of what’s going on and to organize the videos. But cyber activism was only 50% of the picture. The other 50% was the traditional networks of solidarity, trust and support in the Syrian countryside.

People were able to show up in southern Syrian as opposed to Aleppo because they all knew each other. Once they gathered, they began to form coordination committees. These people would make pages on Facebook and upload the videos.

Without the video there is no revolution. The coordination committees would take the videos from the phones, upload them on Facebook, and then reach out to members of the émigré community - Syrian expatriates who did not function under internet constraints and who could take these videos and send them to all of the networks.

We would send them tips on improving the quality of the videos. This is how I became involved in one way with the revolution – by receiving all of these videos, creating a page for each coordination committee, and trying to spread the committees as much as possible in the country and southern Syria.

The first couple of months were remarkable for the number of fights that we were having with one another. Suddenly in a society where there had been no politics for 40 years, your friends are not necessarily people that you tend to agree with on certain political and moral issues but are just your relatives or from your fellow social milieu. It turns out that a lot of people were extremely worried. They were worried about the possibility of an “Iraqization” of Syria. People were very pessimistic about the possibility of democratic change,

and pessimism came from different places. You have the business class of Damascus and Aleppo who are both quite wealthy and benefitting from the stability of the regime and the slow liberalization that Assad was following. You had a lot of diehard secularists and elitists who thought that the minute we democratize the country the Islamists are going to completely take over. So there were a lot of fights but people like me were trying to explain that if you want change to look more like you, you have to participate in it rather than just sit and watch it.

The Facebook groups were huge in creating networks.

My favorite of the almost 20 groups that I’m part of is The Trust Circle. The whole notion is that living under an authoritarian regime is about not having trust in anyone that you don’t personally know because you are always worried that there is an agent right next to you that will send you to prison. One of the first ways that we began to fight the regime and heal from this authoritarian culture was to build bridges of trust with people that we don’t personally know. The technique that we used was this network where I know someone and you know someone and these two people would come to meet even though they don’t necessarily know each other. In Trust Circle we now have about 600 people and are really close friends. In our discussions on everything from the religious dynamic to the future of the country, I started realizing how much potential my country had and how many Syrian expatriates there were really eager to help their country once the regime is down. There was this very romantic element to the revolution.

The most important element of these secret groups was to trigger discussions and build a new political culture amongst the young generations, but also we would work together to build support. The other way in which I became active was in raising funds for the revolution either to send medical equipment or to set up mobile hospitals because you can’t take people to hospitals in Syria, because the security agents would come after you and ban the doctors from actually doing anything for you.

We also raised money for the families of the revolutionaries – the people that were active on the ground every day who lost their jobs or voluntarily quit so they could completely dedicate themselves to the revolution.

The third thing that we spent money on was technical assistance.

The phrase “Down with Bashar” written on a wall during the 2011 Syrian Uprising.

For instance, we would buy routWinter 2012

39

International

ers that are connected directly to satellites. Instead of being dependent on state Internet, you can establish an immediate link with a satellite. You can use this router both as a hub for Wi-Fi and also to talk on the phone with Al-Jazeera. These people were formerly too afraid to use their landlines or even their Syrian cellphones and so these machines were very, very important. Part of setting up a coordination committee was to not only have the manpower or the Facebook page but also to have these machines. The more advanced models would also let you do live streaming from the street. This was a way to circumvent the complete media blockade that the Syrian regime was imposing.

Some of the people that were more artistically inclined would make YouTube videos, songs, puppet shows, stories, jokes, and ways to basically raise the moral of the revolutionaries, drive the message home to people that were still on the fence and also desacralize the regime. If you look at the French revolution or the Russian revolution you can see the importance of sarcasm in destroying the image of a certain regime and breaking completely the walls of fear and distress.

So these videos were extremely important in making fun of either the pro-regime media commentators or Assad himself.

My father became someone that was very heavily involved in the opposition. He was trying very hard with other groups to form a united front, which is extremely difficult, and still is, even though they managed to do so. Every single day trying to establish trust between the conservatives and the liberals is extremely hard. These people share almost nothing except that they are both Syrian and against the regime but otherwise, they couldn’t be any more different.

The Islamists that we have in Syria have learned from their mistakes and learned from the mistakes of political Islam from all over the world and so now they are leaning more and

A pro-Assad rally at Tishreen University.

40

THE POLITIC

more to the Turkish model of being a socially and economically conservative party without having to be a moral police or without having to impose an Islamic state. In a sense they are becoming more like Christian conservative parties in Europe or the Republican Party in this country where they have a social and moral message but are not really using any undemocratic means to impose this message or even undermine the basic civil pillars of a liberal democratic state.

On the secular liberal side you have a very strong bias, where they think modernity is one thing and that any association between religion and state is a sign of backwardness and medieval ages. They don’t want to hear anything about religion or a communal message. They’re terrified and they really don’t want to deal with Islamists. Both groups are trying to go beyond these historic limitations of theirs but it’s difficult.

My dad now is one of seven people leading the Syrian National Council, which is the biggest conglomeration of opposition groups inside and outside the country. As a result of him wanting to be in this position and being chosen to be in this position by his original group, he had to flee the country last month with my mother and sister. They were going through a very hard time and I had to go to Turkey to help them out because they are now refugees settling in Istanbul. Now they are very active with all of the opposition figures – Islamists, liberals inside and outside of Syria, the Syrian national council – to put more and more pressure on the regime. Their first success was getting the Arab League to suspend the membership of Syria and impose economic and political sanctions. God knows what’s going to happen over the coming months.

International

The Politic: How optimistic are you looking forward?

KN: I am optimistic. Revolutions and democracy are not easy.

People who think you have a revolution one day and the next day you have democracy, stability and economic growth – no, that’s a joke. I think Syria is going to be in turmoil for the coming three to five years but at the same time I think that’s totally fine. We’ve been under the Assad regime for the past 41 years and under the Baaths since 1963 and it’s getting time to be able to get rid of them.

The revolution has its doves and hawks. The hawks are people that think there is no other way than to ask for international intervention. They are very scared that the revolution will be defeated before this actually materializes.

They don’t know how it’s going to happen but they want to push for something – Turkish, NATO, something to bring the regime down. They think the regime is like the Libyan or the Iraqi regimes in that it will never have a breakdown on its own. They think the regime will keep killing people until there are no more people willing to demonstrate. The longer the revolution lasts, the more hawkish people are becoming.

There are people that are for international intervention and for the militarization of the revolution like the Libyan model, by letting go of the peaceful means of demonstration and actually carrying arms. This is becoming more and more of a reality because of the defections from the army. The defectors are keeping their weapons with them even though they have no ability to actually fight, and so I think that any talk about a civil war in the country is completely immature. At the same time they are attacking every week or two a convoy or a building that belongs to the security apparatus in the country.

Then there are the doves: people who believe the revolution should persist in the way it started no matter how many people are dying, and they should keep demonstrating until the revolution becomes really massive.

In terms of post-regime, I am not pessimistic. I think it is not going to be super stable, and there is going to be the challenge at first between the different social components of society – the Alawites, Christians and Sunnis. I am not very worried because the group that is committed to not letting this happen is big and they are very present. All we need is to be in charge of the security and the military so that we can preclude any kind of communal fighting.

The other challenge is for the Islamists and the secularists to be able to reach a modus vivendi, but I’m fine with that.

Democracies all over the world learn from their mistakes and here I tend to oppose Western observers who sometimes tend to talk about an Islamic takeover of the world. As long as it is through democratic votes, these people are not impinging on the private sphere of citizens. So long as they are not establishing Islamic states, if they want to form an Islamic

government in an otherwise civil state then that’s fine. That is the biggest challenge and we may learn it the hard way but that is the only way to build a democracy – through trial and error.

Under authoritarianism there is no change; there is nothing. In democracy there is a little bit of instability but there is cumulative learning – I hope. No one could have initially joined the revolution without a little dose of optimism.

The Politic: Do you think the military leadership will remain faithful to the regime?

KN: That is the million dollar question. The leadership itself is made up of several powerful figures that Assad Sr. never allowed to form a body of their own. Each one of them was accountable to Assad himself and Assad only. The situation is even more complicated because there is no one person in charge; there is Bashar and his brother Maher and his brother-in-law Asef Shawkat. Another huge problem is the sectarian dynamic. It is very possible that the Syrian regime is succeeding in convincing the top echelon of the military which by and large tend to be of the Alawite community that this is not about the Assad family but is about the Alawites as a community, and if they turn their backs on Assad then they will pay a big price because revolutionaries will come after them. We have a really big challenge to convince those people.

At the same time I don’t know if the revolutionaries are willing to take the chance to open channels of discussion with people who they think are criminals. Over the past eight months, everyone in the regime has been implicated in what’s going on. We have more than 4,000 martyrs, which is what we call them. Also, the revolutionaries believe that the military brass may never turn their backs on Assad because they have everything to lose and they may still be convinced that they can completely crush the revolution by just killing people, which is not completely inaccurate. The other thing is why do I, as a demonstrator, want to make a deal with people that are already guilty of killing so many and might not help me build a democracy, judging by the Egyptian model and the role of the military in Egypt. They think that we should not trust the army and that we should ask the Turks or Americans or NATO to help us get rid of all of them. I don’t know, that is the very big question.

Justin Schuster is a freshman in Branford College.

Winter 2012

41

International

A Faltering Experiment

By Shivani Vohra

A

Greek, an Irishman, and a Portuguese go into a bar and order a drink. Who picks up the bill? A German.”

When the European nations signed the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, they clearly never fathomed the global recession and recent instability of the union. The idea was simple: to create a single currency in order to enable goods and labor to move more freely across borders, thus fueling economic growth. To prevent financially unstable countries from joining, applicants would go through a screening process that required meeting four main criteria: nations would have to maintain low inflation rates, a target ratio of annual government debt to GDP, an exchange rate range, and low long-term interest rates. These criteria seemed simple enough and 17 countries eventually embraced the Eurozone. But they ignored the fundamental economic trilemma. Nations in a currency union can have three goals: fixed exchange rates, open financial markets, and monetary independence. In any given financial union, as history and contemporary economics has shown, these three objects cannot be simultaneously achieved.

The United States’ currency union has survived because it has accepted the costs that come with the benefits. The federal government consistently redistributes tax revenue from wealthier states to those areas that are struggling. Since the 2008 crisis, the Federal Reserve has maintained the interest rate at virtually zero in hopes of stimulating economic growth.

The Eurozone countries right now are not in sync. Greece, Italy, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain risk defaulting on their sovereign debt. Conversely, as of November 2011, Germany reached its lowest unemployment rate in twenty years. Indeed, the Eurozone members are at such different places economi“

cally that no single solution appears to be able to resolve the situation.

According to economist Nouriel Roubini, the Eurozone has four options, none of which are ideal. The Central Bank can lower interest rates, depreciating the Euro. Germany, however, does not like this option as it violates the mandate to prevent inflation. Moreover, it remains unclear that this move would be sufficient to help the Eurozone. Both the United States and Japan, for example, have kept interest rates close to zero and it has not helped either country completely recover.

The second option is to allow for a lengthy recession with the hopes that the countries will eventually recover. Of course, the Greek and Italian citizens are very much opposed to this idea, as are the many investors afraid of numerous international defaults. Door number three is to allow Germany and other financially solvent nations to continue subsidizing the poorer countries, perhaps permanently. This is the route the United States favors (it would bind the Eurozone closer together).

The Germans, however, chafe at the idea of continuing to bail out the Greeks, Irish and Italians. The final and perhaps scariest option is the default of the countries and breakup of the Eurozone. Countries, including the United States, have defaulted on their debt before. Other nations have broken away from fixed currency metrics, such as the Gold Standard in the past. But never before has a large currency union spanning numerous nations, such as the Eurozone, completely collapsed. No one really knows what the implications of a collapse would be. It would very likely lead to a global financial meltdown. With increasing trade and global capital flows, nearly every nation has some European assets and exposure to Eurozone risk.

Members of the Eurozone, of course, are scrambling to ensure that a default does not happen. As of November 30, 2011, the U.S. Federal Reserve, China, and several of the world’s other central banks reached an agreement to provide emergency dollar loans to European banks in a successful effort to calm investors’ panic. Germany, however, continues to stall at a major bailout, harping about Greek and Italian financial irresponsibility and lack of discipline. No one disagrees with the Germans’ point. But at this stage, if the Eurozone collapses, everyone — including Germany — will likely go down with it.

Shivani Vohra a junior in Davenport College.

Greeks protest austerity measures at a May Day rally in Athens.

42

THE POLITIC

International

The UK and the EU: A Breaking of Unions

By Alex Fisher

F

or the first time in many years, British Eurosceptics smell blood. With the Eurozone crisis having vindicated the nation’s decision to stay out of the single currency, the uneasy truce that had emerged between pro-Europeans like former Chancellor of the Exchequer Kenneth Clarke and the larger sceptical faction that includes many Government backbenchers has broken down, perhaps irrevocably. Europe is once more on the agenda, and recent opinion polls suggest that concern about the EU has risen to a six year high, while support for the UK Independence Party has increased dramatically.

Public concern regarding the EU prompted Conservative backbencher David Nuttall to introduce a controversial motion in Parliament, which called for an immediate referendum on the UK’s continued membership in the EU. It was immediately evident that the bill would not pass. The opposition Labour Party declared their disagreement immediately, while the Conservative – Liberal Democrat coalition Government announced that they would impose a three-line whip against the motion. Under the British system, such a decision demonstrates that the Government expects its members both to be in Parliament that day to vote and to support its position.

Historically, those who defied such a strongly expressed whip would not be offered a Ministerial job under the current administration. In the days preceding the vote, many MPs reported receiving direct and aggressive contact from the Whips’ Office and on occasion, from 10 Downing Street.

Despite this pressure, 81 Conservative MPs backed the motion and voted against the Government’s position. Several junior frontbenchers, including ministerial aide Adam Holloway, resigned from their positions to avoid being sacked.

A rebellion of this scale was unprecedented. It represented over a quarter of the Parliamentary Party and surpassed those of the early 1990s, a time when the Party was riddled with divisions concerning the prospect of further European integration. Although it had long been known that many Conservatives were opposed to the EU, the extent of support for the motion defied expectations.

It would be easy to conclude that the unexpectedly strong support for the motion was in reality irrelevant, since it did not have a tangible impact on the UK’s current interactions with the EU. However, the vote came at a time when the Government had already been following a more Eurosceptic course than its Labour predecessor. In particular, a “referendum lock” introduced by the Cameron administration pledged that the UK would seek a public mandate before signing on to future European treaty changes resulting in a transfer of power from Britain to Brussels. Recent opinion polling suggests that the British people would almost certainly vote against any reforms

that they believed would dilute national sovereignty.

British Euroscepticism is nothing new. The UK entered what was then termed the European Communities in 1973, over twenty years after the original formation of the European Coal and Steal Community. Since then, relations have often been tense. Britain’s attempt to participate in the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which tied the Pound Sterling to the German Deutschmark in preparation for the introduction of the Euro, ended in failure when the UK was forced to withdraw from ERM in the midst of soaring interest rates and a rapidly weakening currency. The day of withdrawal, 16 September 1992, was termed “Black Wednesday,” and cast a shadow over the UK’s future dealings with its European partners.

Although the Labour Government elected in 1997 was more sympathetic to the EU than its Conservative predecessor, Chancellor Gordon Brown’s “five economic tests” essentially ensured that the UK would not join the single currency under his watch. These tests dictated that business cycles and economic structures must reach high levels of convergence, and insisted that membership in the Euro should have a positive impact on British financial services. Passing all of these tests simultaneously was essentially impossible, and consistent Conservative pressure combined with ongoing public scepticism to ensure that Labour did not adopt a more pro-European approach.

Nevertheless, the UK ultimately participated in every single treaty that expanded the EU’s powers, although it often secured opt-outs in specific areas of policy. Most controversially, Labour signed the 2007 Lisbon Treaty whilst ignoring Conservative calls for a referendum. This decision was unpopular, and contributed towards a belief that political elites were not taking public opinion into account as they embraced further European integration.

Despite the election of a Conservative-led Government, many on the right are still dissatisfied with the administration’s position on Europe. The Liberal Democrats, who form part of the Government, are highly pro-European. This has prevented David Cameron from pursuing a more Eurosceptic set of policies. Repatriation of powers has been vaguely discussed, but with the EU focused on the financial crisis and the Prime Minister reluctant to antagonise his coalition partners, progress seems unlikely. Further inactivity will only serve to antagonise those MPs keen to see a fundamental review of the UK’s future relationship. If the EU decides, as many expect it will, to pursue treaty changes as part of its response to the ongoing financial crisis, Eurosceptics will be handed a new opportunity to pursue their aims. Their calls for less engagement with the EU may well become overwhelming.

Alex Fisher is a sophomore in Morse College.

Winter 2012

43

International

Cyberwar: The Fifth Domain of Warfare

By Donna Horning

T

he steady march of technological progress, which has empowered recent generations to save countless lives, has also inevitably opened new military theatres of operation to the battlespace. Over a modern college student’s short two decades of existence, another one of these theatres has entered the conventional domains of land, sea, air, and space — cyberspace. Cyberspace is defined as the domain created by the use of electronics, and as with all other types of military power, cyberpower is measured by the ability to use that domain to achieve a particular strategic outcome. The potential of this new battlespace is only beginning to be realized, creating both terrifying national security vulnerabilities and unprecedented new opportunities for cooperation between the public and private sector and between nations.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the three main strategic challenges unique to the digital medium are asymmetry, attribution, and offensive advantage. Asymmetry refers to the idea that through a cyberattack, actors with limited resources can compromise high-level targets. Why expend time, money, and casualties bombing the U.S. electrical grid if you can take it down remotely through a computer virus instead? In terms of attribution, the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (U.S.-CERT) designates five possible cyber threat sources: national governments, terrorists, industrial spies and organized crime groups, hacktivists, and hackers. However, unlike in the theatres of land, sea, air, and space, cyberattacks do not come with the uniforms of an occupying army, nor flags stamped on predator drones — in fact, their digital footprint can disappear in a matter of seconds. Not only is it difficult to determine who might have been responsible for an attack, the lines between acts of war, terrorism, espionage, crime, protest, vandalism, and more are frequently blurred. It is not always easy to separate a white hat (a hacker who hacks for benevolent purposes, e.g. a security expert) from a black hat or a green hat (a hacker who hacks for malevolent or money-making purposes). As the saying goes, “on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.” Finally, offensive advantage derives from the fact that openness on the Internet is prized over security, so there is limited capability to build defenses against a first strike. Perhaps the saying should be expanded to include: “on the Internet, everyone is a sitting duck.” The technological advancements and legal framework necessary to improve attribution and response to a given cyberattack are still in their infancy. So far, however cyberattacks have fallen into two broad categories: information heists and industrial sabotage.

44

THE POLITIC

Cyberattack Type 1.0: Information Heist

The most common type of cyberattack is an attempt to track the online activity of people within a secure network without their knowledge or permission, usually to gather information about the movements and searches conducted by authorized users or to lift key documents from secure servers (WiseGEEK). The most well known example of this kind of attack is the Operation Aurora virus that began in mid-2009 and continued through December 2009, first publicly disclosed

by Google on January 12, 2010. Three other companies (Adobe Systems, Juniper Networks, and Rackspace) admitted to being targeted by the virus, and dozens more were reportedly hit as well, including Yahoo, Symantec, Northrop Grumman, Morgan Stanley, and Dow Chemical. Uri Rivner of RSA (the security division of EMC2) characterized the attack as a form of “Advanced Persistent Threat,” or security lingo for “Pretty sure it came from China” (Vanity Fair). According to a McAfee White Paper released a few months later, Operation Aurora attacked source-code management systems, manipulating a trove of security flaws that allowed easy access to valuable intellectual property (Wired.com). In a global competition among knowledge-based economies, the Chinese government (or whoever perpetrated the attacks) is using cyberattacks to skip ahead on years of research and development and gain a competitive edge against American companies (WSJ.com). On the surface this sort of attack would probably be classified as espionage conducted by industrial spies, but the Chinese government’s refusal to answer Secretary Clinton’s call for an explanation implies that the attack had national, and therefore possibly warlike, dimensions. It’s an extremely difficult (and politically fraught) call to make. So far, the U.S. government has been cautious in outright accusing the Chinese government of these illegal activities.

The leaking of valuable proprietary secrets to foreign governments is harmful to American companies’ comparative advantage, but the threat from silent, information-gathering attacks can be much more serious than that. A year previously, in 2008, the U.S. Department of Defense suffered a catastrophic compromise of its classified military computer networks. An infected flash drive was inserted into a military laptop at a base in the Middle East, and malicious code uploaded itself to a secure network used by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM).

The code in effect established a digital beachhead from which any information on the network, including operational plans, could be transferred to foreign servers (Foreign Affairs). This

International

nightmare scenario is only the tip of the iceberg of what is possible with creative hackers and an increasingly Internetdependent U.S. security establishment. The scare at CENTCOM in 2008 was what led the Pentagon to officially declare cyberspace the “fifth domain of warfare.”

An important component of preventing information heist-type cyberattacks lies in improved cooperation between the public and private sector. The Operation Aurora debacle exposed major jurisdictional confusion between Google and the government agencies they assumed were protecting their intellectual property. According to Vanity Fair, a former White House official has reported: “After Google got hacked, they called the N.S.A. in and said, ‘You were supposed to protect us from this!’ The N.S.A. guys just about fell out of their

U.S. Air Force secretary Michael Donley has declared that he considers cyberwarfare a key priority. chairs. They could not believe how naïve the Google guys had been” (Gross). Apparently, Google executives believed that the government monitors the Internet the same way it monitors foreign military threats, when in fact USCYBERCOM only defends U.S. military networks and the Department of Homeland Security only protects government networks.

Corporate Internet infrastructure is the sole responsibility of private companies. Estimates published on CNET have shown that in 2008 cyberattacks may have cost businesses as much as $1 trillion globally in lost intellectual property and expenditures for repairing the damage — and the total has only gone up since.

In the near future, clear jurisdictional protocols delineating the responsibilities of government agencies and corporations must be established, as well as an extensive sharing of best practices in combating cyberattacks. A massive technology gap has nearly always existed between the public and private sectors, but in the age of rapidly evolving cyberwarfare the consequences of complacently tolerating this gap have become a matter of critical national security. Jerry Cochran, chief cybersecurity architect at Microsoft, has stated: “without

a set of concrete government incentives or enforceable regulations, corporations will continue to make risk-management decisions based on their individual self-interest. These are considerations that do not necessarily account for larger U.S. national security concerns” (CFR). Governments and corporations must be brought into the age of cyberwarfare together, or neither will be able to avert disastrous information heists in the future.

Cyberattack Type 2.0: Industrial Sabotage

The second type of cyberattack, industrial sabotage, is potentially more destructive than the first. The most formidable example of this type of attack so far is the Stuxnet virus that critically damaged Iranian nuclear power plants, first reported publicly in June 2010. The virus caused the reactors’ Siemens centrifuge systems to spin too fast and self-destruct while maintaining the appearance of a normal operation, much like a pre-recorded security tape in a bank heist (Broad et al, NY Times). As with every other cyberattack, Stuxnet’s precise origins remain mysterious, though strong evidence suggests that it was a collaboration between the U.S. and Israel, possibly with assistance from Germany and Britain (CFR). From a certain perspective, Stuxnet and similar viruses have huge potential for making the world a safer place by sabotaging weapons programs worldwide. In the words of CFR’s Richard Falkenrath, “A sophisticated half-megabyte of computer code apparently accomplished what a half-decade of United Nations Security Council resolutions could not” (CFR). But since then, Stuxnet has spread to similar industrial facilities in various countries just like a biological virus, with a hit rate of 58.85 percent in Iran, 18.22 percent in Indonesia, 8.31 percent in India, 2.57 percent in Azerbaijan, 1.56 percent in the U.S., 1.28 percent in Pakistan, and 9.2 percent in others (Symantec).

American officials have raised fears that a modified Stuxnet worm could cause “blowback” in the U.S. by attacking an electric or telecommunications grid, an oil refinery, or a water treatment facility. As of yet, it remains very difficult to take back control of the industrial machinery once it has become infected.

The only way to combat viruses like Stuxnet that easily traverse national borders is increased international cooperation and transparency. According to James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, international cooperation among law enforcement agencies is critical due to the problem of attribution. Cyberattacks must typically be traced a step at a time from one computer to the next, relying either on the voluntary cooperation of the owners or the compulsory legal processes within each country involved.

So far only 19 countries have signed on to Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs) with the U.S. that would accomplish this goal, which is not nearly enough

Winter 2012

45

International

to effectively investigate cybercrime worldwide. Furthermore, the delays caused by following formal legal procedures can be fatal in investigating cyberattacks due to the transient nature of digital evidence; international cooperation regarding cyberwarfare will have to be the most streamlined ever seen to date. The contribution of the private sector will be crucial in meeting this new standard, as well as extensive inter-agency cooperation between law enforcement, intelligence, national defense, diplomacy, commercial promotion, and technology.

So far the best blueprint for success seems to be the G-8 Subgroup on High-Tech Crime (formed January 1997) that established a 24/7 network of law enforcement points-ofcontact in each of the participating countries. One issue with expanding membership of such groups is that only a handful of countries are actually impacted by cyberattacks, so the vast majority of the world has no interest or capacity in joining.

And of the countries that do suffer from cyberattacks, there is concern that too much transparency would erode hardearned technological advantages (Lewis). But regardless of the enormous challenges, the status quo of international confusion and mistrust surrounding cyberwarfare cannot go on indefinitely — we cannot allow disaster to strike before establishing a cooperative and streamlined international response procedure to cyberattacks.

A Desperate Need to ‘Think Different’

Earlier this year, the Pentagon unveiled a new military strategy, emerging from several years of debate modeled on

the 1950s effort to deter nuclear attacks, that declares any cyberattack that threatens widespread civilian casualties (e.g. cutting off power or emergency-responder communications) an act of war that could merit a military response. According to the head of the United States Strategic Command, General Kevin P. Chilton, the proportionality of response is deliberately left vague to leave all options on the table. As an administration official intimated: “almost everything we learned about deterrence during the nuclear standoffs with the Soviets in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s doesn’t apply” (Sanger and Bumiller, NY Times). The deterrence dynamics of cyberwarfare are desperately in need of greater theorizing.

The United States’ counter-cyber establishment is also desperately in need of more personnel. In March 2011, General Keith Alexander, chief of USCYBERCOM, described cybersecurity staffing and resources as very thin and likely to be overwhelmed by a crisis. U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense William J. Lynn III also acknowledged the disproportionate number of computer scientists being produced by India and China, suggesting that the United States will “lose its advantage in cyberspace if that advantage is predicated on simply amassing trained cybersecurity professionals” (CFR). Looking for a job after graduation in a guaranteed growth sector with a focus on public service? Major in computer science and dust off your white hat — cyberwarfare is here to stay, and the Department of Homeland Security is hiring.

Donna Horning is a junior in Davenport College.

Flower tribute to Google in China after threatening to remove their services in wake of Operation Aurora. Chinese authorities later denounced it as an “illegal flower display” to the United Nations.

46

THE POLITIC

International

World Population Hits 7 Billion

By Austin Schaefer

T

his Halloween, the world reached a major demographic milestone; the United Nations reported that global population had exceeded 7 billion individuals. Though a surprise to no one, this has sparked discussion of the significance of this event, as well as its consequences for mankind.

An obvious concern lies in Earth’s need to feed its massive population, projected to peak at 10 billion by the end of the twenty-first century. In the early 1960s, global population was growing at the feverish rate of about 2 percent annually, doubling roughly every 35 years. This prompted scholarly interest in man’s ability to feed itself, though fortunately any fears of food shortage proved unfounded. Advances in agricultural technology during this time period were so drastic that increases in food production vastly outpaced population growth. As David Lam, Professor of Economics at the University of Michigan notes, global food production per capita increased 41 percent between 1961 and 2009, a result of the “Green Revolution” in agricultural technology. Though the world population has more than doubled since 1961, people are better fed today than they were fifty years ago. The Green Revolution ushered in an era of mechanized agriculture; small family farms were consolidated into larger, more efficient ones. Now that this transformation has occurred, it remains unclear where we could turn for our next massive increase in food supply.

The key to increased agricultural yields may be as simple as access to water, which proves increasingly scarce in the developing world. Water, obviously, cannot be “grown” or “produced” as food can, and regional water shortages have already caused environmental damage. Soviet irrigation projects during the 1960s, for instance, diverted rivers that previously fed the Aral Sea. The sea shrank to about 10 percent of its original size, wiping out a source of fish – and commerce – that once sustained much of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization estimates that water consumption will rise by 50 percent in developing countries over the next twenty years, creating a dramatic sense of urgency for new sources of water, lest environmental resources be depleted as they were in Central Asia. Desalinization will likely play a prominent role in this “water revolution,” though current processes are expensive and require large amounts of energy. Whereas the Green Revolution of the 1960s lowered costs and increased output, reliance on desalinization would increase the cost of water (and therefore food), possibly entrenching poverty in the developing world.

Another concern that might disproportionately affect poorer regions of the world is climate change. If global

temperatures rise over the next century, as many researchers believe they will, massive changes in food production will follow. Desertification will worsen near the Equator, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, making water scarcer and agriculture more costly and difficult. Meanwhile, supply centers for food will move north, making higher latitudes more suitable to agriculture. Canada and Russia, for instance, may become the breadbaskets of the twenty-first century as land formerly under permafrost becomes suitable for large-scale agriculture.

The poorest regions of the world would suffer dramatically, while wealthier countries would experience an agricultural renaissance.

Population growth has not been uniform across countries, so massive demographic changes will occur alongside challenges to global food and water supply and distribution.

Developed countries’ growth rates have slowed dramatically since their peak mid-century, and their populations are aging substantially. This will place great stress on their economies and welfare systems; more and more people will reach retirement age without corresponding growth in the labor force.

In the United States, for instance, Social Security is projected to run out of funds by 2037, according to the Congressional Budget Office. As the elderly tend to vote at higher rates than the general population, this demographic change will lead to pronounced electoral changes. Entitlement reform will become increasingly difficult, amplifying the stresses these systems place on the economy.

The developing world, by contrast, will continue to experience rapid population growth, a phenomenon often linked with poverty. Developing countries’ high growth rates will cause their populations to grow progressively younger.

While providing a steady supply of labor, the poverty associated with the high growth rates can cause other problems.

Economic dislocation of young populations tends to lead to civil unrest, as was seen in the Arab Spring in early 2011.

Social turmoil might befall the developing world as fiscal crises confront the developed one.

The shifting demographics of the global population will certainly have drastic impacts in years to come. Societies will have to adjust to the pressures caused by changes in their composition, and new methods will be required to feed the masses and satiate their thirst. Once the global economy has adjusted to these new realities, all will be thrown into turmoil again as the global population plateaus, forcing developing nations to adjust to aging populations.

Austin Schaefer is a frreshman in Jonathan Edwards College.

Winter 2012

47

International

China’s Unsustainable Growth

Why China should adopt the Western liberal paradigm of societal success

By Paavan Gami

A

my Chua’s book Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother whipped up an international storm. While criticisms defending Western parenting gained prominence, the Chinese perspective itself was neglected. In China, the book was paradoxically heralded as a how-to guide for achieving success in the Western education system, but this phenomenon has not been insular.

It is quickly apparent upon entering Chinatown – and noting America’s highest density of SAT tutors per block – that college admissions, specifically to top Western universities, is of paramount importance to Chinese immigrants. This societal concession that the Western higher education system is better than its Eastern counterpart is a rare one.

If the Chinese adopt the Western liberal paradigm of societal success as quickly as they did the Western educational one, perhaps they too will realize that their loss of export dominance will inevitably come hand-in-hand with tremendous societal gains.

From their nation’s name – Zhongguo, meaning “center nation” – to the idea that their emperor possessed the “mandate of heaven,” the Chinese are instilled with the belief that the Chinese national destiny is hegemony, that China ought to be the center of civilization. Today, the country is arguably closer than it ever has been before to that goal. Pundits have been quick to declare China the next global superpower, generating hype and even fear about the eastern giant’s economic and military clout. However, when one considers the fundamental factors underlying China’s growth, its long-term prospects as an export-based powerhouse are not so rosy. Many of the lauded Chinese Communist Party structural policies are slowly backfiring, and it has become increasingly evident that the country’s temporary boom in export prowess has evaporated.

However, Chinese domestic society, as viewed from a liberal paradigm, is gaining steam as a legitimate system to provide for the needs of the Chinese people.

At the most basic level, China was able to leverage its inherent advantage – a huge labor force – to attract international 48

THE POLITIC

investment. This advantage is unfortunately disappearing; the nation is in the same demographic quagmire as the West, with a growing elderly population that will need to be subsidized by the state, as well as a dwindling working class. The onechild policy, once used to restrain mushrooming growth, has backfired in a massive way, reducing birth rates to far below the population replacement rate. Even worse, a cultural paradigm that values male over female children has created a tremendous disparity in the gender ratio in the younger generation. Experts estimate that one in five Chinese youth will be unable to find a spouse by 2020.

Further reducing labor efficacy is an age-old Chinese policy called the hukou, or the household registry system.

The system institutionalizes a labor division between rural and urban workers; in order to migrate from one area to another, workers have to apply for permits. A relic from the country’s Maoist command economy of yore, it was originally justified as a method of stabilizing agrarian production and controlling labor allocation. As a present-day policy, it has caused huge, irrevocable problems. The rural region that still possesses an untapped labor reservoir does not have the mobility to access the urban industrialized zone’s employment opportunities.

The current Chinese economy still suffers from relics of the old Maoist command economy.

International

This has created a void for multi-national corporations looking for cheap labor while also antagonizing the rural populace; rural workers believe they have been deprived of a basic right.

This issue, the marginalization of minorities, is an overarching theme of Chinese Communist Party governance.

Unrest originating in ostracized groups like the Mongols and Uighurs is slowly spreading across the nation. Catalysts, month after month, from the arrest of activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiabo to the July 2011 train crash that killed forty, are inciting mass protests. This sort of movement is an eventuality in any society in China’s position. As Karl Marx argued, industrialization brings workers together such that they, for the first time, identify as a discrete class deserving particular rights and conscious of deprivations thereof.

While such deprivations may have initially been justified as a path to economic growth that provided for more basic needs, once those needs are provided, quality of life becomes of paramount importance. As China emerges as a developed country, its population will continue protesting until workers’ rights and environmental protections reach levels comparable to the West. This sort of social development will almost certainly lead to slower economic growth as increased costs drive production away.

External pressure is supplementing this internal push for labor standards. Consumers in the West are frequently using their purchasing power to chastise corporations engaging in unethical production in China. Furthermore, human rights organizations and Western governments are increasing diplomatic pressures to improve labor standards. To maintain profit

margins, multi-national corporations are investing elsewhere.

Another external influence is the movement to pressure China into legitimately unpegging the Renminbi, the Chinese currency. Though China officially unpegged the Renminbi in the summer of 2010, many controls persist; the currency is still approximately 30 percent undervalued. Ongoing diplomatic pressure from the United States and other Western nations to remove all controls has recently been supplemented by a larger worry that monetary policies like China’s had a part in causing the sovereign debt crisis. The idea is that pegged currencies, maintained through purchasing large amounts of foreign currency, artificially deflate interest rates and make debt cheaper than it ought to be. These increasingly powerful international forces will force China to let the Renminbi freely float. As the currency appreciates to its true value over time, exports from China will become pricier, exacerbating capital flight from the country.

As production and export costs in China rise, the appeal of countries like Vietnam and South Korea – who have not yet entered the stage of labor protest – increases exponentially.

The United States and European Union both recently signed free trade agreements with South Korea and reinforced ties with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The result has been a tremendous outpouring of foreign direct investment (FDI) into these countries. While China’s FDI grew approximately 30% from 2006-2007 (before the global economic recession), Vietnam’s FDI tripled over the same time frame.

It is incredibly clear that the model of Chinese growth as being export-dependent is due to expire soon; China faces internal labor problems, external pressures to be more equitable in monetary practices, and tough competition from other Asian countries. However, this does not mean that China’s day is in any way over. Though it may not have ultimately succeeded through the lens of hegemony via economic growth, it is on the path to achieving reforms that better provide for its citizens. The very labor standards painted as devastating to economic growth also better the quality of life for workers.

Indeed, even unpegging the Renminbi, a move that will certainly reduce exports, will also increase the purchasing power of the Chinese populace. If the Chinese adopt the Western liberal paradigm of societal success as quickly as they did the Western educational one, perhaps they too will realize that their loss of export dominance will inevitably come hand-inhand with tremendous societal gains.

Paavan Gami is a freshman in Silliman College.

The future of China looms in the horizon.

49

THE POLITIC

International

Ciao, Ciao: The Rise and Fall of Berlusconi

By Seoyoon Han

O

n 16 November 2011, Silvio Berlusconi, the longest serving prime minister of Italy since WWII, lost his parliamentary majority and resigned from his post. Mario Monti, a former European Commissioner, was welcomed as a technocratic prime minister who might rescue Italy from its devastating economic spiral. Berlusconi, however, is far from a bygone politician and still has great influence over Italian politics.

A successful real estate magnate and the owner of Italy’s biggest media company, Mediaset, Berlusconi entered the political world with his own party, Forza Italia, in 1993. He presented himself as Il Cavaliere, “The Knight,” who would eradicate corruption, promote free market economics, and protect traditional ideals of family while at the same time pave the way for a new Italy. The richest man in Italy, with the rhetorical skill of Demosthenes, Berlusconi sought and won the office of the prime minister three times from 1994 to 1995, 2001 to 2006, and 2008 to 2011.

From day one, his premiership has been filled with controversies and scandals. His attitude towards women has drawn the international community’s harshest criticism. Broadcasting companies under Mediaset such as Canale 5 have featured various programs in which women are portrayed degradedly.

Rumors that he often invited young women to his house to have “Bunga Bunga” sex parties have become a source of international humiliation and mockery. The most recent scandal to produce a media circus was Rubygate. Berlusconi is currently under investigation for engaging in paid sex with a minor, a Moroccan teenage dancer known as “Ruby the Heartstealer.”

Berlusconi’s transgressions in office extended far beyond his personal life. He exploited his political power to bend laws and make people serve him rather than the country.

One example of this is Berlusconi’s appointment of female participants of his TV programs to important government positions. Gabriella Carlucci, a hostess of many Berlusconi shows, is now a mayor of the city of Margherita di Savoia.

Nicole Minetti, a former showgirl, is now a member of the influential Council of Lombardy and is suspected of introducing prostitutes to Berlusconi. It is not just these appointments that has raised eyebrows and generated disgust. Berlusconi has been tried 26 times for tax evasion, bribery, false testimony, mafia collusion, extensive manipulation of the media, and various other offenses.

His worse offense proved to be his handling of the financial crisis. Italy has long suffered from certain economic structural flaws. Companies are prone to building coalitions that create high market barriers to entry, hurt competition, and inflate prices. Berlusconi presented himself as a reformer and 50

THE POLITIC

an advocate of the free market, but did little to tackle these deficiencies. And why would he? He is the richest businessman in Italy. The 2008 financial crisis hit an already sluggish economy in Italy, causing severe unemployment and skyrocketing debt.

Berlusconi himself did not survive the momentum of events.

Last month, after over a decade of rule, the “Il Cavaliere” was dethroned. Fiscal mismanagement and incompetence, not “Bunga Bunga” or Rubygate, proved too much for Italians to tolerate.

The question remains: Why did Italy tolerate Berlusconi for as long as they did? Why did they wait for the economic disaster? The perpetuation of this seemingly unfathomable situation lies in the unique cultural and political background of Italy. Between the fall of the Roman Empire and unification in the late 19th century, the peninsula was a jigsaw of small territories and independent cities. The great diplomat Lord Metternich referred to Italy as nothing more than a “geographical expression.” A century and a half after Mazzini, Garibaldi, and Cavour, the country still lacks a strong sense of nationhood and community. Many people feel more loyalty towards their province than their country, united only every four years for the World Cup. Berlusconi has exploited this fragmentation and its wolf pack dynamics. A powerful man with wealth and control of the media, Berlusconi could depend upon the loyalty of the few and influential to act as a buffer. Berlusconi would retain control over the second tier elite who in turn would maintain control over the populace.

Berlusconi’s conduct towards women, meanwhile, may be more socially accepted in Italy than elsewhere. Italy, along with its French neighbors, is less puritan about sexual conduct than the United States. The Global Gender Gap Report, measuring gender-based disparities and tracking female political and social progress, ranked Italy 74th in the world. A recent survey of 4,000 women in the five largest countries in Europe found that 76 percent of Italian housewives were dissatisfied with their lives.

But is it truly over for Berlusconi? His opponents are not yet unified, and Berlusconi’s party still has a strong grip on Italian politics. Berlusconi still has the power to ‘pull a Putin’ and push one of his trustworthy servants to the front as a prime ministerial candidate during the next election in 2013.

Or, as The New York Times suggested, if this new government fails to revive the economy, there is a possibility that Berlusconi will present himself as the only alternative that can save the country. Berlusconi has resurrected himself in the past, winning re-election after losing his position in 1995 and 2006.

There may be a third time.

Seoyoon Han is a freshman in Timothy Dwight College.

International

Who Will Save Bosnia From Itself?

By Vinicius G. Lindoso

O

nce upon a relatively recent time, Bosnia-Herzegovina (BiH) was perhaps the hottest conflict spot in the world.

Sarajevo attracted some of the most ambitious journalists seeking to boost their careers by reporting first-hand on the horrors of a genocidal war. By 1994, nearly three years into Europe’s bloodiest war since WWII, pressure from a public horrified by the news of multiple massacres, concentration camps, and genocidal practices forced the international community to cast aside its largely non-interventionist posture – based on the argument that the West was powerless to stop a conflict based on irreconcilable “ancient hatreds” – and take an active role in resolving the crisis. International mediation, particularly U.S. pressure, was vital in unifying Croats and Bosniaks within a Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in ultimately bringing the three ethnic leaderships onboard the comprehensive Dayton Peace Agreement in November 1995.

Post-Dayton policy radically changed from non-intervention to over-intervention in every single aspect of the country’s government structure: high inflow of development and humanitarian assistance followed Dayton, with a High Representative granted ultimate executive authority over central Bosnian state as well as the relatively autonomous Serb and Bosniak-Croat entities. The hunt for war-criminals began alongside de-mining and infrastructural reconstruction projects. Through the 1996 and 1998 national, cantonal, and municipal elections, the Office of the High Representative

A view of Sarajevo at sunset from the Martyrs Cemetery.

(OHR) iron-handedly sought to root out radical nationalism from Bosnian politics. Foreign aid flowed in huge sums, and though only 2% was distributed to the Bosnian Serbs, the heavy hand of the OHR elicited Serb leaders’ compliance, ensuring a relatively calm context for state-building. As of December 1998, the OHR put an end to the sacking of publicly-elected officials and expulsion of candidates from party lists, focusing instead on co-opting party leaderships to implement necessary reforms. Many U.S., OHR, and Bosnian officials agree that up to 2005, the country was headed to full implementation of the Dayton provisions in a foreseeable future.

In 2006, everything changed. Between then and now, Bosnia has experienced a protracted internal political stalemate characterized by lack of political agreement across the main ethnic parties, and gradually increasing inter-ethnic tensions at the level of municipal politics. Moreover, a gap has taken place between the international community, embodied in the OHR, and the quarreling, corruption-ridden ethnic leaderships. The history of international mediation in the country has been one of decreasing trust of the general public on the ability of the OHR to keep the country politically stable. On the political side, the election of Milorad Dodik as President of Republika Srspka (RS) on a highly nationalist, secessionist platform has thrown the Bosnian political stability down the gutter. There is little doubt now that the OHR’s 1996-1999 heavy-handed efforts at forcing Bosnian parties to converge on a non-nationalist agenda have failed.

More recent attempts at institutional reform by the International Community have met similar fates. In 2008, Bosnia and the EU signed the Association and Stabilization Agreement, a crucial step in the long road to accession to the EU, and in 2010 Bosnia was included in the Schengen Area in late 2010. Despite these latest carrots, the country’s slow progress toward membership in the EU and the perception that the EU favors both Croatia and Serbia its expansion has ensured decreased support for the EU as the latter attempts to bring the country out of political deadlock.

In 2009, the U.S.-led Butmir talks on constitutional reform produced a document on constitutional reform – hesitatingly backed by the EU – that Winter 2012

51

International

remains largely ignored by the Bosnian parliament.

Though highly underreported in the press, officials in Brussels admitted that the negotiations never really enjoyed the EU’s full-hearted support, signaling the beginning of a growing rift between EU and U.S. policies toward Bosnia. This has significant consequences for the future and credibility of international institutions operating in the country. After 2009, the U.S. by and large abandoned whatever little initiatives there were to push through the constitutional reforms necessary for progress in Bosnia’s path to EU membership. Its presence is now limited mostly to supporting actions by the OHR, which is itself exiting Sarajevo to set up a new headquarters in Vienna from which long distance operations can be conducted. While the EU – through the role of a EU Special Representative (EUSR) independent from the OHR, – has surely enjoyed wider room to implement what it believes is a more gradual movement toward a political breakthrough, the EU’s lack of full U.S. support is likely to decrease its potential to both broker and implement agreements. Bosniak and Croat parties believe U.S. policies are much more favorable to their agendas.

The behind-the-curtains EU-U.S. rift has recently culminated in two ways. First, thirteen months after the October 2010 elections, Bosnia still lacks a government at the state level, and neither the OHR nor the EUSR have been able to engage the parties in meaningful discussion toward building a coalition. Second, the authority of the international community in Bosnia was called into question by Serb President Milorad Dodik in May, when he announced the RS would carry out a referendum on the legitimacy of Bosnia’s federal judiciary.

High Representative Valentin Inzko and Dodik engaged in heated exchanges through the media. An EU official speaking on condition of anonymity described Inzko’s position as being implicitly backed by U.S. wishes to see the OHR adopt a more proactive role in managing Bosnian politics. The EU, while officially supportive of the OHR, opened bilateral negotiations with President Dodik and convinced him to cancel the referendum in exchange for continued discussion of longstanding Serb grievances. While its decision to appease Dodik has proven successful at keeping the Serb leadership at the negotiating table, it may have only exacerbated the Bosnian government crisis by alienating a Bosniak leadership accustomed to the international community’s die-hard support.

Moreover, while it is early to tell, there is a clear risk that the EU’s decision to appease Republika Srpska might embolden the radical, secession-minded wings of the Croat leadership.

Furthermore, as stated in a May 11 private intelligence report

by STRATFOR, the EU’s strategy to force Bosnians to resolve their own issues without much international intervention may elicit influence from other powers such as Turkey, Russia, or

52

THE POLITIC

even (albeit less likely) Saudi Arabia.

The prospect of Saudi influence in Bosnia is downplayed

by EU officials. Nonetheless, visiting Bosniak villages or neighborhoods from Srebrenica to Mostar, one finds the first results of an Islamic religious revival supported by nationalist Bosniak parties and funded almost entirely by Saudi Arabia, through Wahabi missionary movements. Wahabis comprise a very small minority within the Bosniak population, and are in constant conflict with the mainstream Bosniaks, but the Bosniak leadership has refused to place greater emphasis on controlling the flow and use of money from Saudi Arabia. The issue has become more pronounced in the past 18 months, after a Wahabi carried out a suicide attack against a police station in Central Bosnia in June 2010, and another Wahabi fired continuous shots against the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo last October. There is no reason as of yet to believe these are anything more than isolated accidents, but the unchecked growth fundamentalist factions within the Wahabi movement itself could potentially yield additional trouble for a country already immersed in political turbulence and economic stagnation. On the other hand, in the age of the War on Terror, Islamic fundamentalist action in Bosnia might elicit further international attention and better policy coordination between the U.S. and the EU.

Assessments of growth and development for Bosnia are at this point perhaps as bleak as they were in 1991, with the fortunate exception that two of the major actors involved in initiating the conflict in 1992 – Serbia and Croatia – lack the reasons to support secessionist movements in Bosnia. They have been effectively embraced by the international community in exchange for, inter alia, fully supporting Bosnia’s post-Dayton territorial integrity. Moreover, it is hard to believe that the EU and the U.S. would allow the country to slide back into violent conflict – for guilt of past ill-judgment, if nothing else. Nonetheless, it is naïve to think that Bosnia will turn into a healthy country overnight. Failure by the UN negotiators back in 1995 to establish something akin to a Truth and Reconciliation Committee, the ambiguous success of the ICTY, and the failure by the OHR to purge Bosnia of ethnic nationalism mean that inter-ethnic rivalries remain alive. As the Bosnian political system moves into chaos, ethnic parties are more likely to push ethnic distrust to a climax unseen since 1995.

Bosnia may well be on its way back to the front page of the international media. Unfortunately, the current situation indicates that, absent a vigorous policy mix of co-opting and pressuring ethnic leaderships by the International Community, political conflict might spill over to the streets.

A CONTI-

Vinicius G. Lindoso is a junior in Silliman College.

Who next?

A -

You Decide.

Write for Us! Email PoliticAtYale@gmail.com

Click in and Learn Yale faculty in international and area studies are interviewed about their current research.

New webisodes air each Wednesday at noon

www.yale.edu/macmillanreport

The MacMillan Report is made possible through funding from the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale.